ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-339/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 May 2018 — Veneto Latte Scrl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 May 2018 — Veneto Latte Scrl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

(Case C-339/18)

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Veneto Latte Scrl, Bovolenta Luca e Matteo s.s., Greco Andrea e Alessando s.s., Ruzza Vanel e Gloriano s.s., Azienda Agricola Marangona di Tamiso Rossano

Respondents: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

Questions referred

1. In a situation such as that described in the case in the main proceedings, must EU law be interpreted to the effect that the consequence of the conflict of a legislative provision of a Member State with the third subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 ( 1 ) is that producers are not obliged to pay the additional levy if the conditions laid down by that Regulation are met?

2. In a situation such as that described in the case in the main proceedings, must EU law and, in particular, the general principle of protection of legitimate expectations, be interpreted as meaning that the expectations of persons who have performed an obligation laid down by a Member State and have benefited from the effects associated with performance of that obligation may not be protected, if that obligation has proved to be in conflict with EU law?

3. In a situation such as that described in the case in the main proceedings, do Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 ( 2 ) of 9 July 2001 and the EU concept of ‘priority category’ preclude a provision of a Member State, such as Article 2(3) of Decree-Law No 157/2004, adopted by the Republic of Italy, which lays down varying methods for refunding an additional levy that has been over-charged, drawing a distinction, in terms of timetables and methods of repayment, between producers who have relied upon due compliance with a national provision that has proved to be in conflict with EU law and producers who have not complied with such a provision?

( 1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1).

( 2 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 of 9 July 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy on milk and milk products (OJ 2001 L 187, p. 19).
Case C-377/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 June 2018 — Criminal proceedings against AH, PB, CX, KM, PH

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 June 2018 — Criminal proceedings against AH, PB, CX, KM, PH

(Case C-377/18)

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Accused persons

AH, PB, CX, KM, PH

Question referred

Is national case-law which requires that, in the text of an agreement (entered into in the context of criminal proceedings), not only the accused person who has admitted that he is guilty of a criminal offence and has entered into that agreement, but also other accused persons, the joint perpetrators of the offence, who have not entered into that agreement, who have not admitted that they are guilty and against whom the case continues in accordance with ordinary criminal procedure, but who have agreed to the first accused person entering into that agreement, be identified as perpetrators of the criminal offence in question, compatible with the first sentence of Article 4(1), read in conjunction with the first sentence of recital 16 and with recital 17, of Directive 2016/343? ( 1 )

( 1 ) Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).
Case C-403/18P: Appeal brought on 14 June 2018 by Alcogroup and Alcodis against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2018 in Case T-274/15 Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission

Appeal brought on 14 June 2018 by Alcogroup and Alcodis against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2018 in Case T-274/15 Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission

(Case C-403/18P)

Parties

Appellants: Alcogroup, Alcodis (represented by: P. de Bandt, J. Dewispelaere, J. Probst, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Orde van Vlaamse Balies, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone, Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles

Form of order sought

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2018 in Case T-274/15;

— declare the action against the two contested decisions to be admissible;

— refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the merits concerning the action for annulment;

— order the Commission to pay all of the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law and infringed the obligation to state reasons;
1.

Must workers who are categorised as ‘particularly susceptible to certain risks’ be regarded as persons with a disability for the purposes of the application of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, ( 1 ) as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, where, owing to their own personal characteristics or known biological condition, those workers are particularly susceptible to occupational risks and, for that reason, are unable to perform certain jobs on the ground that such jobs would entail a risk to their own health or to other individuals? If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, the following questions are referred:
Case C-398/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 15 June 2018 — Antonio Bocero Torrico v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 15 June 2018 — Antonio Bocero Torrico v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

(Case C-398/18)

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Antonio Bocero Torrico

Respondents: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

Question referred

Must Article 48 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation which requires as a condition for access to an early retirement pension that the amount of the pension to be received must be higher than the minimum pension which would be due to the person concerned under that same national legislation, the term ‘pension to be received’ being interpreted as the actual pension from the competent Member State (in this case, Spain) alone, without also taking into account the actual pension which that person may receive through another benefit of the same kind from one or more other Member States?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 19 June 2018 — Jamina Hakelbracht, Tine Vandenbon, Instituut voor de Gelijkheid van Vrouwen en Mannen v WTG Retail BVBA

(Case C-404/18)

(2018/C 311/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Jamina Hakelbracht, Tine Vandenbon, Instituut voor de Gelijkheid van Vrouwen en Mannen

Defendant: WTG Retail BVBA

Question referred

Should European Union law and, more specifically, Article 24 of Directive 2006/54/EC (1) 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, be interpreted as precluding national legislation which affords protection against retaliation to persons who act as witnesses only to persons who, in the context of the investigation of a complaint, bring to the notice of the person with whom the complaint is lodged, in a signed and dated document, the facts which they have personally seen or heard and which relate to the situation which is the subject of the complaint filed or who appear as witnesses in legal proceedings?

(1) OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 2 May 2018 — Humbert Jörg Köfler and Others

(Case C-297/18)

(2018/C 301/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Humbert Jörg Köfler, Wolfgang Leitner, Joachim Schönbeck, Wolfgang Semper

Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal

Interested party: Finanzpolizei

Question referred

Must Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a national provision which provides for fines with no upper limit, especially high minimum penalties or several years’ imprisonment for non-collectible fines for offences committed as a result of negligence?
—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2012/39/EU of 26 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/17/EC as regards certain technical requirements for the testing of human tissues and cells (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of Directive 2012/39/EU;
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 26 June 2018 — IO, other party: Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst

(Case C-420/18)

(2018/C 319/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: IO

Other party: Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst

Question referred

Does a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation, who is in a subordinate position in regard to that Board for his employment and remuneration conditions, but who is otherwise not in a subordinate position in regard to the Supervisory Board or the foundation, carry out his economic activities independently within the meaning of Article 9 and Article 10 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 26 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
5.

Are national rules such as those at issue, which effectively allow a person to be deprived of his liberty by being committed to a psychiatric hospital under a procedure provided for in the Zakon za zdraveto (Health Law) (a precautionary compulsory measure ordered where there is evidence that the person concerned suffers from a mental illness and is at risk of committing a criminal offence, but not where an offence has already been committed), compatible with Article 3 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence, in the case where the real reason for initiating the procedure is the offence on account of which criminal proceedings have been brought against the person committed for treatment, and does this circumvent the right, on arrest, to a fair trial which must satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 5(4) of the ECHR, that is to say a trial in which the court is empowered to review not only compliance with the rules of procedure but also the suspicion justifying the arrest and the lawfulness of the objective pursued by that measure, the court being obliged to carry out such a review in the case where the person in question was arrested under the procedure laid down in the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks?
5.

If the answer to Question 1 or 2 means that Article 16(6) of the Electricity Regulation is to apply to an undertaking which merely operates an interconnector, and the answer to Question 3 and 4 means either that the company may not use revenues resulting from the allocation of interconnection to operate or maintain or to make a return, or that the undertaking may use the revenues to operate or maintain, but not to make a return, is application of Article 16(6) of the Electricity Regulation to an undertaking which merely operates an interconnector contrary to the EU-law principle of proportionality or any other applicable principle?
1.

Is the rule established by the Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 22/2010 of 16 March, the Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 34/2010 of 9 April, the Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 25/2011 of 7 April, and the Order of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development No 22/2011 of 25 March — in accordance with which a farmer’s application for support is to be rejected based solely on the set of criteria relating to the ‘lawful user of the land’, laid down by national law, and the absence of the ‘certificate of land use’ as a result of those criteria, even though the farmer meets the other criteria relating to the application for support and, in particular, is able to prove that the parcels declared are at his disposal, that is to say, that he manages and exploits those parcels — compatible with EU law?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 30 July 2018 — COPEBI SCA v Etablissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

(Case C-505/18)

(2018/C 364/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: COPEBI SCA

Respondent: Etablissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

Other party: Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation

Question referred

Is European Commission Decision 2009/402/EC of 28 January 2009 concerning the ‘contingency plans’ in the fruit and vegetable sector implemented by France (C 29/05 (ex NN 57/05)) (1) to be interpreted as covering aid paid by the office national interprofessionnel des fruits et légumes et de l’horticulture) (ONIFLHOR) (National Fruit, Vegetables and Horticulture Trade Board) to the comité économique agricole du bigarreau d’industrie (CEBI) (Economic Committee for the Whiteheart Cherry Industry) and allocated to producers of whiteheart cherries for industrial uses by the producer groups which are members of that committee, even though CEBI is not one of the eight economic agricultural committees referred to in paragraph 15 of the decision and the aid in question, unlike the financing mechanism described in paragraphs 24 to 28 of that decision, was financed only by subsidies from ONIFLHOR and not also by voluntary contributions from producers, known as sectoral contributions?

(1) OJ 2009 L 127, p. 11.
3.

In the light of the facts of the case, can a situation involving a flight which is operated by an airline domiciled in another Member State, but which departs from or arrives in a Member State where that airline has a branch providing ancillary services to the airline but through which the tickets were not purchased, be deemed to constitute a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment, which is the basis for the connecting factor for the ground of jurisdiction laid down in Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012?
Appeal brought on 26 July 2018 by Inge Barnett against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2018 in Case T-23/17 Barnett v European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

(Case C-503/18 P)

(2018/C 381/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Inge Barnett (represented by: S. Orlandi, T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

Form of order sought

Primarily:

— Annul the judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018, Barnett v EESC, T-23/17, EU:T:2018:271;

— Annul the decision of the EESC of 21 March 2016, taken with a view to complying with the judgment of 22 September 2015, Barnett v EESC, F-20/14, EU:F:2015:107;

— Order the EESC to pay the costs.

In the alternative:

— Annul the judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018, Barnett v EESC, T-23/17, EU:T:2018:271;

— Annul the decision of the EESC of 21 March 2016, taken with a view to complying with the judgment of 22 September 2015, Barnett v EESC, F-20/14, EU:F:2015:107;

— Order the European Economic and Social Committee to pay to the appellant a sum of EUR 207 994,14 in respect of the material damage suffered, together with default interest calculated from the due date of the sums payable, at the rate fixed by the European Central bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by 3.5 points and a lump sum of EUR 25 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

— Order the EESC to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the General Court made several errors in law by considering that the EESC could, in order to give effect to the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal, merely review the appellant’s application in the light of an alleged interest of the service which was supposedly identified three years after the adoption of the first decision refusing her application and of which the parties were unaware until 21 March 2016. That alleged interest of the service, which causes the appellant to be struck off the list of beneficiaries because she is indispensable for the proper functioning of the service, is unrelated to the applicable GIP of the EESC. Furthermore, that alleged interest of the service was relied on without consultation of the Joint Committee. That committee had nevertheless pointed out in 2013 that in the event of the withdrawal of one of the beneficiaries of the measure, a proposal would be made to award the appellant that privilege, taking into account the interest of the service.

The appellant also maintains that the General Court failed to have regard to the force res judicata of a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal.

Finally, the contested judgment is vitiated by an error of law in that the General Court considered that, despite the repeal of the legal basis necessary for the adoption of the contested decision, the EESC had retained the competence to adopt a decision in response to the appellant’s application. In answering that plea, the Court also misinterpreted the arguments relied on in support of the objection of lack of competence raised by the appellant.
3.

Is the Directive of 12 July 2002, read in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as making the legality of the procedures for the collection of connection data subject in all cases to a requirement that the persons concerned are duly informed once such information is no longer liable to jeopardise the investigations being undertaken by the competent authorities, or may such procedures be regarded as lawful taking into account all the other existing procedural guarantees, since those guarantees ensure that the right to a remedy is effective?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 17 May 2018 by Safe Skies LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2018 in Case T-60/17: Safe Skies v EUIPO

(Case C-326/18 P)

(2018/C 427/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Safe Skies LLC (represented by: V. Schwepler, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 4 October 2018 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Appeal brought on 10 January 2018 by Ccc Event Management GmbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) made on 7 November 2017 in Case T-363/17, Ccc Event Management GmbH v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-23/18 P)

(2018/C 408/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Ccc Event Management GmbH (represented by: A. Schuster, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

By order of 13 September 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
(If the first question is answered in the affirmative:)

Must Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619/EEC, in conjunction with Article 31 of Directive 92/96/EEC, be interpreted as precluding a national rule under which, in the event of no information or incorrect information being supplied on the right of cancellation before the contract is concluded, the period for exercising the right of cancellation begins to run at the point in time at which the policy-holder was informed — by whatever means — of his right of cancellation?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 20 September 2018 by Fujikura Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-451/14: Fujikura v Commission

(Case C-590/18 P)

(2018/C 427/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Fujikura Ltd (represented by: L. Gyselen, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Viscas Corp.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the General Court’s judgment in so far as it upheld the plea in law alleging an infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment with regard to the fine imposed upon it;

— give final judgment in accordance with Article 61, first paragraph, second sentence, of its Statute by: — annulling Article 2(o) of the Commission’s decision (1) of 2 April 2014 imposing a fine of EUR 8 152 000 upon Fujikura Ltd.; and — reducing this fine by 44 % to EUR 4 565 120;

— order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law by validating the Commission's approach to apply Point 18 of its 2006 Guidelines (2) as if the entire infringement only covered the ‘worldwide part’ of the cartel and did not have an ‘intra-EEA part’ involving only the European suppliers.

As a result, the Commission determined the notional values of sales for the cartel participants in a way that significantly undervalued the role of the European suppliers and overvalued the role of the Asian suppliers, including Fujikura, in this infringement.

(1) Commission Decision of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power Cables) (notified under document C(2014) 2139 final) (OJ 2014, C 319, p. 10)

(2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006, C 210, p. 2)