ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/42

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 12 August 2013 — The Queen on application of Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency

(Case C-453/13)

2013/C 344/72

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Newby Foods Ltd

Defendant: Food Standards Agency

Questions referred

(i) Do the words ‘loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure’ in paragraph 1.14 of Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 (1) mean ‘any loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure’ that is visible using standard techniques of microscopy? (The same words appear also in Article 3(n) of Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001 (2), as amended by Regulations (EC) No. 1923/2006 (3)).

(ii) Can a meat product be classified as a meat preparation within paragraph 1.15 of Annex I where there has been some loss or modification of its muscle fibre structure that is visible using standard techniques of microscopy?

(iii) If the answer to (i) is no and the answer to (ii) is yes, is the degree of loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure that is sufficient to require the meat product to be classified as MSM within paragraph 1.14 of Annex I the same as that required to eliminate the characteristics of fresh meat within paragraph 1.15?

(iv) To what extent must the characteristics of fresh meat have been diminished before they can be said to have been eliminated within the meaning of paragraph 1.15?

(v) If the answer to (i) is no, but the answer to (iii) is also no: (a) What degree of modification to the muscle fibre structure is required in order for the product in question to be classified as MSM? (b) What criteria should be used by national courts in determining whether or not the muscle fibre structure of the meat has been modified by that degree?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin

OJ L 139, p. 55

(2) Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

OJ L 147, p. 1

(3) Regulation (EC) No 1923/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

OJ L 404, 30.12.2006, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 359/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 10 October 2013 — Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others v Fipa Group and Others

(Case C-534/13)

2013/C 359/08

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero della Salute, Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA)

Respondents: Fipa Group srl, Ivan srl, TWS Automation srl

Question referred

Do the European Union principles relating to the environment, laid down in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in Directive 2004/35/EC (1) of 21 April 2004 (Articles 1 and 8(3) and recitals 13 and 24 in the preamble) — specifically, the ‘polluter pays’principle, the precautionary principle and the principles that preventive action should be taken and that environmental damage should be rectified at source as a matter of priority — preclude national legislation, such as the rules set out in Articles 244, 245 and 253 of Legislative Decree No 152 of 3 April 2006, which, in circumstances in which it is established that a site is contaminated and in which it is impossible to identify the polluter or to have that person adopt the restoration measures, do not permit the administrative authority to require the owner (who is not responsible for the pollution) to implement the emergency safety and decontamination measures, merely attributing to that person financial liability limited to the value of the site once the decontamination measures have been carried out?

(1) Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56).
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

Do the costs of the operation to remove the product and implant another pacemaker constitute damage caused by personal injury for the purposes of Article 1 and point (a) of the first sentence of Article 9 of Directive 85/374/EEC?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 377/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Östersunds tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 6 May 2013 — E.ON Vattenkraft Sverige Aktiebolag v Kammarkollegiet and Others

(Case C-251/13)

2013/C 377/10

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Östersunds tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.ON Vattenkraft Sverige Aktiebolag

Defendants: Kammarkollegiet, Ljustorp socken ekonomisk förening, Länsstyrelsen i Västernorrlands län, Murberget Länsmuseet Västernorrland, Naturskyddsföreningen Timrå, Naturvårdsverket, Sveriges Sportfiske- och Fiskevårdsförbund, Timrå kommun, Miljö- och byggnadsnämnden, Älvräddarnas samorganisation

On 20 August 2013, the President of Court ordered the discontinuance of the case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/25

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 3 October 2013 — Eycke Braun v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-524/13)

2013/C 367/45

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Karlsruhe

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eycke Braun

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Question referred

Is Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, (1) as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the fees received by a notary employed as a civil servant for the drawing up of a notarially attested act recording a transaction concerning the conversion of a capital company into a different type of capital company constitute taxes for the purposes of that Directive, even if the conversion does not lead to an increase in the capital of the acquiring or transforming company?

(1) OJ 1969 L 249, p. 25.

(2) Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 amending Directive 69/335/EEC concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23).
1.

Does the trial extraction of natural gas, for a limited period and in a limited quantity, which is carried out in the context of an exploratory drilling operation designed to establish whether the permanent extraction of natural gas would be economically viable constitute an ‘extraction of … natural gas for commercial purposes’ within the meaning of Annex I, no 14, to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, (1) as amended by Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Directive 85/337)? (2) If the reply to Question 1 is in the affirmative, the following further questions arise:
1.

Does a third-country national who is staying illegally within the territory of a Member State pose a risk to public policy, within the meaning of Article 7(4) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348; ‘the Return Directive’), merely because he is suspected of having committed a criminal offence under national law, or is it necessary that he should have been convicted in a criminal court for the commission of that offence and, in the latter case, must that conviction have become final and absolute?
2.

Must Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 be interpreted as authorising the Member States to fix the fair compensation payable to rightholders in the form of: 1. a lump-sum remunerative payment made by the manufacturer, importer or intra-Community acquirer of devices enabling protected works to be copied, at the time when such devices are put into circulation on national territory, the amount of which is calculated solely by reference to the speed at which the copier is capable of producing a number of copies per minute, without being otherwise linked to any harm suffered by rightholders; and, 2. a proportional remunerative payment, determined solely by means of a unit price multiplied by the number of copies produced, which varies depending on whether or not the person liable for payment has cooperated in the collection of that remuneration, which is payable by natural or legal persons making copies of works or, as the case may be, in lieu of those persons, by those who, for consideration or free of charge, make a reproduction device available to others. If the reply to this question is in the negative, what are the relevant and consistent criteria that the Member States must apply in order to ensure that, in accordance with European Union law, the compensation may be regarded as fair and that a fair balance is maintained between the persons concerned?
1.

Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (‘the Regulation’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action by which the person acquiring government bonds of the defendant makes payment claims against the defendant in the form of claims for performance and damages is to be regarded as a ‘civil or commercial matter’, within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1(1) of the Regulation, in the case where the acquirer did not accept the exchange offer made by the defendant at the end of February 2012, which was made possible by Greek Law No 4050/2012 (‘Greek-Bondholder-Act’)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 31/6

Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-2/07 Spain v Commission

(Case C-641/13 P)

2014/C 31/10

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present appeal and partially set aside the judgment of 16 September 2013 in Case T-2/07 Spain v Commission;

— partially annul, in accordance with the terms indicated, Commission Decision C(2006) 5102 of 20 October 2006, reducing the financial assistance from the Cohesion Fund to the group of projects bearing the reference 2001.ES.16.C.PE.050 and concerning the clearance of the hydrographical basin of Júcar (Spain), in so far as it is considered therein that the use of experience as an award criterion constitutes an irregularity; and

— order the respondent to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Error of law as regards the finding that the use of experience as an award criterion is contrary to Article 30 of Directive 93/37 (1). That provision does not preclude the use of criteria linked to the contractor’s experience at the time when a contract is awarded. On the contrary, the tenderer’s experience may be assessed, provided that it is used as a criterion that is not intended to measure the tenderer’s suitability, that it is kept distinct from the solvency requirement and that it is intended to determine the most economically advantageous offer by demonstrating a link between the subject-matter of the contract and the quality of its performance.

(1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54).
1.

Does European Union law, in particular Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (Directive 2011/92), (1) in particular Article 11 thereof, preclude a provision of national law under which a decision finding that a particular project does not require an environmental impact assessment is also binding on neighbours who did not have the status of parties in the previous proceedings for a declaratory decision and can be relied on as against them in subsequent development consent proceedings even though they have the opportunity to raise their objections to the project in those consent proceedings (the objection in the main proceedings being that the effects of the project will pose a risk to the appellant’s life, health or property or represent an unreasonable nuisance to her in the form of smell, noise, smoke, dust, vibration or otherwise)? If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
4.

Finally, the fourth ground of appeal complains that the confirmed fine is, in any case, disproportionate. As incriminating findings of fact were set aside in the judgment and will be set aside owing to legal errors in reasoning, an unchanged imposition of the statutory maximum penalty of 10 % of group turnover, which the General Court declared, cannot be proportionate and thus cannot be lawful. Where the findings of fact used to establish the infringement are to a large extent not valid, then, in view of glaring gaps in causality and evidence as well as the absence of attribution links, there cannot be any SCCI which covered six countries, three product groups and 10 years, but at most punctual, local infringements, which would far from justify the level of penalty imposed in this case. The facts under examination in this case are a long way from constituting a serious or by no means most serious case imaginable, a matter which the General Court — in gross disregard of the discretionary criteria which it had to interpret — did not consider.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 27 December 2013 — Belgacom SA v Commune de Fléron

(Case C-685/13)

2014/C 61/09

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Belgacom SA

Defendant: Commune de Fléron

Question referred

Do the provisions of the Authorisation Directive, (1) and in particular Article 13 thereof pertaining to the methods of imposition of fees for rights of use for radiofrequencies and rights to install facilities on or under public or private property, preclude the imposition on mobile telecommunications operators by the communal administrative authorities of a Member State, by way of a municipal regulation, of a tax comprising a single and flat-rate fee of EUR 2 500 per pylon or mast, the fact giving rise to which is the presence of such pylon or mast on the territory of the commune on 1 January of the year of assessment, in the case where that tax does not represent remuneration and is motivated by budgetary and environmental objectives?

(1) Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21).
On the interpretation of Article 134(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax:

Is the supply of State-examined care workers, as a transaction closely linked to welfare and social security work, essential to the provision of care services to the host establishment (user undertaking), if the host establishment cannot operate without staff?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/29

Appeal brought on 13 December 2013 by The Cartoon Network, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 October 2013 in Case T-285/12: The Cartoon Network, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-670/13 P)

2014/C 52/54

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: The Cartoon Network, Inc. (represented by: I. Starr, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Boomerang TV, SA

Form of order sought

The appellant seeks an order that:

— The judgment under appeal be set aside by the Court of Justice and that the contested decision be annulled; or in the alternative,

— That the judgment under appeal be set aside by the Court of Justice and referred back to the General Court; and that

— The defendant pays to the applicant, the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. Infringement of Article 36 and 53 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the ‘Statute’) Articles 36 and 53 of the Statute state that the General Court has a duty to set out the reasons on which its judgments are based. In the Judgment under Appeal the General Court erred in law by failing to provide reasons for its conclusion that the relevant public consisted solely of professionals.

2. Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009/EC (1): Distortion of the Facts: Relevant Public 2.1. The General Court erred in law in concluding that the relevant public consisted solely of professionals and was the same relevant public for the relevant services of the Intervener's CTM and the CTM Application, as this conclusion is based on a distortion of the facts before the General Court. The General Court and the Board should have limited their analysis to the specification of the CTM Application; or in the alternative 2.2. If the General Court was correct to conclude that the relevant public for both the CTM Application and the Intervener's CTM was composed solely of professionals, the General Court ought to have considered that there was no likelihood of confusion between the CTM Application and Intervener's CTM, as a result of the higher degree of attention paid by the relevant professionals.

3. Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009/EC: Distortion of the Facts: Similarity of Services and Infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation 207/2009/EC The General Court erred in law in concluding that the services covered by the CTM Application are similar to the services protected by the Intervener's CTM, bearing in mind inter alia their respective nature, intended purpose, end users and relevant public. Furthermore, the General Court and the Board erred in law in relying on facts on their own initiative.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 78, 24.3.2009, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Nederland) lodged on 12 December 2013 — H.J. Mertens v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-655/13)

2014/C 78/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H.J. Mertens

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Question referred

Should Article 71(1)(a)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted as precluding a frontier worker who, immediately after a full-time employment relationship with an employer in a Member State, is employed for fewer hours by another employer in the same Member State, from being classified as a partially unemployed frontier worker?

(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 1971 L 149, p. 2 [DE, FR, IT, NL]; English special edition: Series I Volume 1971(II) P. 416-463).
1.

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in [Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10 Costa and Cifone [2012] ECR] to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?
1.

Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) 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, to be interpreted as meaning that an extraordinary circumstance causing a delay to a flight also constitutes an extraordinary circumstance, within the meaning of that provision, for another, subsequent flight, in the case where the effect of the extraordinary circumstance causing a delay affects the later flight solely by reason of the operational organisation of the air carrier?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 3 January 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Thi Bich Ngoc Nguyen and Nadine Schönherr

(Case C-2/14)

(2014/C 71/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Thi Bich Ngoc Nguyen

Nadine Schönherr

Other party to the proceedings: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

Question referred

Are medicinal products, as defined in Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, (1) which contain ‘scheduled substances’ listed in Regulations (EC) No 273/2004 (2) and (EC) No 111/2005 (3) always excluded from the scope of those regulations in accordance with Article 2(a) of those regulations, or is that to be presumed only where the medicinal products are compounded in such a way that the scheduled substances cannot for the purposes of those regulations be easily used or extracted by readily applicable or economically viable means?

(1) OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 1).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors (OJ 2005 L 22, p. 1).