ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-384/18: Action brought on 8 June 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

Action brought on 8 June 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-384/18)

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents,)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

— Find that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 25 of Directive 2006/123/EC ( 1 ) and Article 49 TFEU;

— Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By (i) prohibiting the joint exercise of work as accountants, on the one hand, and as brokers, insurance agents, estate agents or all banking and financial services work, on the other, and by (ii) permitting the Chambers of the Institut Professionnel des Comptables et Fiscalistes Agréés (Institute of Accounting professionals and Tax Experts; IPCF) to prohibit the joint exercise of work as accountants, on the one hand, with any craft or commercial agricultural activity, on the other, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 25 of Directive 2006/123/EC and Article 49 TFEU.

( 1 ) Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).
Case C-347/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 28 May 2018 — Avv. Alessandro Salvoni v Anna Maria Fiermonte

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 28 May 2018 — Avv. Alessandro Salvoni v Anna Maria Fiermonte

(Case C-347/18)

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Avv. Alessandro Salvoni

Defendant: Anna Maria Fiermonte

Question referred

Should Article 53 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 ( 1 ) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that it is not possible for the court of origin, which has been requested to issue the certificate provided for in Article 53 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 with regard to a judgment that has acquired the force of a res judicata, to exercise powers of its own motion to ascertain whether there has been a breach of the rules set out in Chapter II, Section 4 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, so that it may inform the consumer of any breach that is established and enable the consumer to consider, in full knowledge of the facts, the possibility of availing himself of the remedy provided for in Article 45 of the Regulation?

( 1 ) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).
Case C-365/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 4 June 2018 — Shell Italia E & P SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 4 June 2018 — Shell Italia E & P SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

(Case C-365/18)

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Shell Italia E & P SpA

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Autorità per l’energia elettrica, il Gas e il Sistema idrico

Question referred

Do Article 6(1) and the sixth recital of Directive 94/22/EC ( 1 ) preclude national legislation, in particular Article 19(5-bis) of Legislative Decree No 625 of 1996, which, by reason of the interpretation provided by the Consiglio di Stato in judgment No 290/2018, allows the imposition, in the context of the payment of royalties, of the QE (energy share) parameter, based on the listed prices of oil and other fuels, rather than on the basis of the PFOR index, which is pegged to the price of gas on the short-term market?

( 1 ) Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (OJ 1994 L 164, p. 3).
If question 1 is to be answered in the negative, what are the requirements which, pursuant to Article 6(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/399 … apply to the reasons as to why the foreign national is considered to be a threat to public policy?

Must Article 6(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/399 … be interpreted as precluding a national practice according to which a foreign national is considered to be a threat to public order on the sole ground that it has been established that the foreign national concerned is suspected of having committed a criminal offence?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 18 June 2018 — Infohos v Belgische Staat

(Case C-400/18)

(2018/C 301/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Infohos

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Must Article 13.A(1)(f) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977, now Article 132(1)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006, be interpreted as permitting Member States to attach an exclusivity condition to the exemption provided for therein, whereby an independent group which also supplies services to non-members is also liable in full to VAT for the services supplied to its members?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

(2) 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-383/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Lublin-Wschód w Lublinie z siedzibą w Świdniku (Poland) lodged on 11 June 2018 — Lexitor Sp. z o.o. v Spółdzielcza Kasa Oszczędnościowo-Kredytowa im. Franciszka Stefczyka, having its registered office in Gdynia, Santander Consumer Bank S.A., having its registered office in Wrocław, mBank S.A., having its registered office in Warsaw

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Lublin-Wschód w Lublinie z siedzibą w Świdniku (Poland) lodged on 11 June 2018 — Lexitor Sp. z o.o. v Spółdzielcza Kasa Oszczędnościowo-Kredytowa im. Franciszka Stefczyka, having its registered office in Gdynia, Santander Consumer Bank S.A., having its registered office in Wrocław, mBank S.A., having its registered office in Warsaw

(Case C-383/18)

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Lublin-Wschód w Lublinie z siedzibą w Świdniku

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lexitor Sp. z o.o.

Defendants: Spółdzielcza Kasa Oszczędnościowo — Kredytowa im. Franciszka Stefczyka, having its registered office in Gdynia, Santander Consumer Bank S.A., having its registered office in Wrocław, mBank S.A., having its registered office in Warsaw

Question referred

Is Article 16(1), in conjunction with Article 3(g), of 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 ( 1 ) to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer, in the event of early repayment of his obligations under a credit agreement, is entitled to a reduction in the total costs of the credit, including those costs the amount of which does not depend on the duration of that credit agreement?

( 1 ) OJ 2008 L 133, p. 660.
4.

How should the expression in the first sentence of Article 33(1) of the Harmonised VAT Directive, according to which the transport is carried out ‘by or on behalf of the supplier’, be interpreted? Does this expression include the case in which the taxable person offers as a seller, in an online shopping platform, the possibility for the buyer to enter into a contract with a logistics company, with which the seller collaborates for operations other than the sale, when the buyer can also freely choose a carrier other than the one proposed, and the transport contract is concluded by the buyer and the carrier, without the intervention of the seller? Is it relevant, for interpretative purposes — especially taking into account the principle of legal certainty — that by the year 2021 the Member States must amend legislation transposing the aforementioned provision of the [VAT Directive], so that Article 33(1) of that directive must also be applied in case of indirect collaboration in the choice of carrier?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 22 June 2018 — Nicolas Aubriet v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche

(Case C-410/18)

(2018/C 301/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nicolas Aubriet

Defendant: Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche

Question referred

Is the condition imposed on students not residing in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by Article 3(5)(b) of the amended Law of 24 July 2014 on State financial aid for higher education studies, which does not take into account any other connecting factor, that is to say, the condition that they must be the children of workers who have been employed or have carried out their activity in Luxembourg for a period of at least five years in the course of a reference period of seven years at the time at which the application for financial aid is made, necessary in order to attain the objective put forward by the Luxembourg legislature, namely that of bringing about an increase in the proportion of persons with a higher education degree?
2.

Second, the appellant submits in support of its plea that, in the original antidumping investigation, two categories of exporters were identified: co-operating exporters such as the appellant that were granted market economy treatment (‘MET’) pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the Basic Regulation; and non-co-operating producers that were not granted MET and with regard to which the EU Instituions appled the ‘best information available’ methodology pursuant to Article 18 of the Basic Regulation. During the partial interim review that resulted in the adoption of Regulation 626/2012, the cooperating producers such as the appellant were denied MET by the EU Institutions and their normal value was established pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation by reference to Argentina, the analogue country chosen by the Commission. This category of exporters was not present during the original investigation. Therefore, even if Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation were to be construed as preventing the EU Institutions from using constructed normal values as opposed to actual domestic sales in an interim partial review, quod non, it would still not prevent the EU Institutions from using constructed normal value with regard to a new class of exporters, notable cooperating but not grated MET, which emerged for the first time at the interim partial review.
Official Journal of the European Union

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 24 May 2018 — Criminal proceedings against EK, AH and CX

(Case C-340/18)

(2018/C 328/32)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

EK, AH and CX

By order of the Court of 3 July 2018, the case was removed from the register of the Court of Justice.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 28 June 2018 — Jörg Paul Konrad Fritz Bode v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

(Case C-428/18)

(2018/C 364/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Jörg Paul Konrad Fritz Bode

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?
3.

Should Article 56 TFEU and the prohibition on discrimination be interpreted as precluding legislation under which, for undertakings established in Hungary, the obligation to register is satisfied automatically, without making an explicit application, through the allocation of a Hungarian tax identification number as part of the process of registering with the Companies Registry, irrespective of whether or not the undertaking publishes advertisements, whereas for undertakings that are not established in Hungary but that publish advertisements in that country it is not satisfied automatically, and instead they have specifically to comply with the obligation to register, and can be subject to a specific penalty if they fail to do so?
5.

Even if, in the light of the above principles, the (monitoring) authorities which are authorised by the law of the Member State to identify and investigate public procurement infringements of their own motion, and which are under a duty to defend the public interest may be granted the power referred to in questions 1 to 4, must Article 41(1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, recitals 2, 25, 27 and 36 of Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts, Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors and, in this context, the principle of legal certainty, as a general principle of EU law, and the requirement for effective and rapid remedies against decisions by contracting authorities in public procurement cases, and the proportionality principle, be interpreted as meaning that the national courts may assess whether the period of time that has elapsed between the occurrence of the infringement, the expiry of the period previously established for bringing an action for review, and the commencement of the proceedings to investigate the infringement, is reasonable and proportionate, and may use this as a basis for determining the legal consequences of the nullity of the contested decision or other consequences established by the law of the Member State?
5.

Can a plant protection product already be considered not to be identical within the meaning of Article 52 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 if the reference product does not (any longer) originate from the same undertaking? The Court of Justice is requested, in answering that question, also to consider whether the notion of an associated undertaking or of an undertaking operating under licence can also include an undertaking which produces the product according to the same recipe, with the consent of the right-holder. Is it relevant here whether the production process according to which the reference product and the parallel product which is to be introduced are manufactured is carried out by the same undertaking as far as the active substances are concerned?
—

The General Court has erred in law in examining the conceptual similarity between the signs, since it takes into account only the perception of a significant part of the relevant public and fails to establish the relevance of the remainder of the relevant public, for whom the conceptual difference between the marks fails to counteract their visual or phonetic similarity.
2.

Second ground of appeal: the General Court did not examine whether the documents on the basis of which the second inspection was ordered had been seized within the unlawful part of the first inspection, and it decided as if the first inspection had been ordered entirely in accordance with the law. The documents on the basis of which the second inspection was ordered were seized in the preceding (first) inspection of the Commission at the seat of České dráhy. By its judgment in Case T-325/16 the General Court annulled in part the Commission’s decision ordering the first inspection, to the extent that it did not concern alleged predatory pricing on the Prague-Ostrava route. České dráhy considers that the documents on the basis of which the Commission ordered the second inspection were seized in the unlawful part of the first inspection (the Commission would not have come across them if it had carried out the first inspection solely to the lawful extent) and could not therefore be used as a basis for ordering the second inspection. The General Court did not examine those questions.
1.

Do (i) Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, interpreted in the light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and (ii) Article 39(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow the right to vote in European Parliamentary elections to be withdrawn because a guardianship measure has been adopted for a person due to his or her mental disability?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 19 February 2018 by Robert Hansen against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2017 in Case T-304/16: bet365 Group v EUIPO

(Case C-136/18 P)

(2018/C 399/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Robert Hansen (represented by: M. Pütz-Poulalion, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 6 September 2018 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach (Poland) lodged on 3 July 2018 — Lebopoll Logistics Sp. z o.o. w Sośnicowicach v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Zabrzu

(Case C-437/18)

(2018/C 427/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lebopoll Logistics Sp. z o.o. w Sośnicowicach

Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Zabrzu

Question referred

Should the term ‘residence’ be interpreted in accordance with Article 1(j) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council and with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council, or does the term ‘residence’ also mean temporary residence within the meaning of Article 1(k) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).
2.

Do Articles 4 and 17 of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids — read in the light of the principle of effectiveness under EU law — preclude an interpretation according to which a decision having the force of res judicata taken by the supervisory authority pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2004/25/EC by means of which a legal person’s breach of national provisions adopted in implementation of Directive 2004/25/EC was established is not given binding effect in the context of administrative-penalty proceedings subsequently conducted by that supervisory authority against the body authorised to represent that legal person, as a consequence of which that legal person (the body) once again has all the factual and legal pleas and evidence available to it to challenge the breach of law established in the decision that already has the force of res judicata?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 19 July 2018 — JM v Belgische Staat

(Case C-470/18)

(2018/C 427/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JM

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Should Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union, in cases of value added tax, be interpreted as precluding in all circumstances the use of evidence obtained in violation of the right to respect for private life as guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter, or does it leave room for a national regulation under which the court which has to decide whether such a piece of evidence can be used as the basis for a VAT assessment has to make an evaluation such as the one set out above under paragraph 4 of this judgment.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 4 September 2018 — TDK-Lambda Germany GmbH v Hauptzollamt Lörrach

(Case C-559/18)

(2018/C 436/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TDK-Lambda Germany GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Lörrach

Question referred

Is the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, (1) as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1218/2012 [of the European Parliament and of the Council] of 12 December 2012 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that static converters such as those in the present case are to be classified under subheading 8504 4030 only if they are used principally with telecommunication apparatus, automatic data-processing machines and units thereof, or is it sufficient, for the purpose of satisfying the characteristic ‘of a kind used’, if the converters can also, in view of their objective characteristics, be used with telecommunication apparatus, automatic data-processing machines and units thereof, in addition to other applications?

(1) OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2012 L 351, p. 36.