ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/14

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Council of State (Belgium) lodged on 8 March 2011 — The non-profit-making association PRO-BRAINE and Others v The Commune of Braine-le-Château

(Case C-121/11)

2011/C 152/25

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Council of State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: The non-profit-making association PRO-BRAINE and Others

Defendant: The Commune of Braine-le-Château

Question referred

Does the definitive decision on the carrying on of operations at an authorised or already operational landfill site taken on the basis of Article 14(b) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (1) constitute a consent as referred to in Article 1(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment? (2)

(1) OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.

(2) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/9

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 21 March 2011 — Joan Cuadrench More v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM)

(Case C-139/11)

2011/C 179/16

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Joan Cuadrench More

Defendant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM)

Question referred

Is 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, as regards time-limits for bringing proceedings, Article 35 of the Montreal Convention, establishing a two year period, is applicable, or must some other Community provision or the relevant domestic law be regarded as applicable?

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/10

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 15 April 2011 — Sillogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai Khorotakton v (1) Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, (2) Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, (3) Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis

(Case C-177/11)

2011/C 194/14

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sillogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai Khorotakton

Defendants: (1) Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, (2) Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, (3) Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis

Question referred

Does Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42/ΕC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30), in providing that an environmental assessment is to be carried out for all plans and programmes ‘which, in view of the likely effect on sites, have been determined to require an assessment pursuant to Article 6 or 7 of Directive 92/43/ΕEC’, mean that the obligation to make a particular plan subject to an environmental assessment depends on the preconditions for environmental assessment under Directive 92/43/ΕEC being met in respect of that plan and that, therefore, the provision in question of Directive 2001/42/ΕC also requires, like the above provisions of Directive 92/43/ΕEC, affirmation that the plan is likely to have a significant effect on a special area of conservation, whilst leaving the substantive assessment in that regard to the Member States? Or is Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42 to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement to carry out an environmental assessment under that provision does not depend on the preconditions for carrying out an environmental assessment under Directive 92/43 being met, that is to say on the finding as to the likelihood of significant effects on a special area of conservation, and it is sufficient to find that a particular plan is connected in some way with a site envisaged in Directive 92/43, but not necessarily with a special area of conservation, in order for the obligation to carry out such an assessment to be activated?
Is Article 102 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that a public authority acts as an undertaking if it stores in a database (business undertakings register) the information reported by undertakings on the basis of statutory reporting obligations and allows inspection and/or printouts to be made in return for payment, but prohibits any more extensive use?

If the reply to Question 1 is in the negative:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 211/10

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 18 April 2011 — Econord SpA v Comune di Cagno and Comune di Varese

(Case C-182/11)

2011/C 211/19

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Econord SpA

Defendants: Comune di Cagno and Comune di Varese

Interested party: Aspem SpA

Question referred

Must the principle that the position of an individual public authority holding shares in a società strumentale [(a company set up to provide certain municipal services)] is immaterial also apply where one of the partner municipalities holds a single share in the società strumentale and the shareholders’ agreements entered into by the partner public authorities are not such as to give the shareholding municipality any effective power of control over the company, with the result that the company shareholding may be regarded merely as formal cover for a contract for the provision of services?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/18

Appeal brought on 16 May 2011 by Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA and Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07 Siemens AG Österreich and Others v Commission

(Case C-233/11 P)

2011/C 204/33

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA and Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA (represented by: H. Wollmann and F. Urlesberger, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Siemens AG Österreich, VA Tech Transmission & Distribution GmbH & Co. KEG, Siemens Transmission & Distribution Ltd, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should

— set aside Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07 in so far as Article 2(j) and (k) of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 in case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear are annulled;

— set aside the first indent of Paragraph 3 of the judgment under appeal and uphold Article 2(j) and (k) of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final and, in respect of Article 2(k) of that decision, declare that each of the joint debtors in relation to the other parties who are jointly liable must pay one third of the fine of EUR 4 500 000;

— alternatively set aside the first indent of Paragraph 3 of the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court;

— in any event set aside Paragraph 7 of the judgment under appeal and order the respondent to pay the costs of proceedings in Case T-124/07 and the costs of the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court, going beyond what was sought by the applicants, also annulled the fine which was imposed on Schneider Electric SA alone and improperly increased the joint and several liability of the appellants. The judgment under appeal is therefore in breach of fundamental legal principles. The General Court is in breach of the principle of the right to bring proceedings and the principle which is implicit in Article 263 TFEU that no person can institute proceedings on behalf of another person.

Further, the General Court, going beyond what was sought by the applicants, intervened in relation to the validity of the Commission’s Decision against Schneider Electric SA. That improper interference with the validity is contrary to the principle of legal certainty.

The appellants were given no opportunity to state their opinion on the material findings of the General Court. That constitutes a defect in the procedure before the General Court, since thereby the appellants’ right to a hearing within the meaning of Article 6 EHCR has was infringed.
2.

Should a transport company which merely provides transport of persons by providing bus transport to travel agencies (not directly to travellers) and which does not provide any other services (accommodation, information, consultancy etc.) be regarded as a travel agent for the purposes of Article 306 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 211/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso (Italy) lodged on 20 April 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Elena Vermisheva

(Case C-187/11)

2011/C 211/21

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Treviso

Defendant in the criminal proceedings

Elena Vermisheva.

Question referred

In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and of the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude the possibility that a third country national illegally staying in a Member State may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to four years where he fails to comply with the first order issued by the Questore and a term of imprisonment of up to five years for failure to comply with subsequent orders (with the corresponding obligation for the police authorities to arrest those engaged in the commission of this offence) simply on account of his lack of cooperation in the deportation procedure, in particular his simple failure to comply with a removal order issued by the administrative authorities?

(1) OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.
1.

Does Article 13(A)(1)(g) and/or (2)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) permit the national legislature to make the exemption of out-patient care services for those who are sick or in need of care dependent on the fact that, in the case of such organisations, ‘the costs of the care have been borne in at least two thirds of cases wholly or mainly by the statutory social security or social welfare authorities in the previous calendar year’ (Paragraph 4(16)(e) of the Umsatzsteuergesetz 1993)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 2 May 2011 — Georg Köck v Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb

(Case C-206/11)

2011/C 226/20

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Georg Köck

Respondent: Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb

Question referred

Do Articles 3(1) and 5(5) of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) or other provisions of that directive preclude a national provision under which the announcement of a clearance sale without the authorisation of the competent administrative authority is not permitted and for that reason must be prohibited in court proceedings, without it being necessary in those proceedings for the court to consider whether such a commercial practice is misleading, aggressive or otherwise unfair?

(1) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/15

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 11 May 2011 — BrainProducts GmbH v Bio Semi V.O.F. and Others

(Case C-219/11)

2011/C 232/24

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant and appellant: BrainProducts GmbH

Defendants and respondents: Bio Semi V.O.F., Antonius Pieter Kuiper,. Robert Jan Gerard Honsbeek, Alexander Coenraad Metting van Rijn

Question referred

Does a product which is intended by the manufacturer to be applied for human beings for the purpose of investigation of a physiological process constitute a medical device, within the terms of the third indent of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 93/42/EEC, (1) only in the case where it is intended for a medical purpose?

(1) Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1), last amended by Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 5 September 2007 (OJ 2007 L 247, p. 21).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/10

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 April 2011 — HIT hoteli, igralnice, turizem d.d. Nova Gorica and HIT LARIX, prirejanje posebnih iger na sreco in turizem d.d. v Bundesminister für Finanzen

(Case C-176/11)

2011/C 226/18

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: HIT hoteli, igralnice, turizem d.d. Nova Gorica and HIT LARIX, prirejanje posebnih iger na sreco in turizem d.d.

Defendant: Bundesminister für Finanzen

Question referred

Is a rule of national law which permits the domestic advertising of casinos located outside the national territory only where the legal protection for gamblers in those foreign locations corresponds to the protection under domestic law compatible with the freedom to provide services?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 238/4

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Rennes (France) lodged on 23 May 2011 — Martial Huet v Université de Bretagne occidentale

(Case C-251/11)

2011/C 238/07

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Rennes

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Martial Huet

Defendant: Université de Bretagne occidentale

Question referred

In circumstances where the State decides to renew the appointment of a staff member previously appointed for a period of six years under a fixed-term contract, does the obligation to use a contract of indefinite duration pursuant to Article 13 of the Law of 26 July 2005 necessarily mean, in light of the objectives of Directive 1999/70 of 28 June 1999, (1) that the new contract must reproduce in identical terms the principal clauses of the previous contract, in particular, those clauses concerning the job title and remuneration?

(1) Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 238/4

Action brought on 17 May 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-236/11)

2011/C 238/06

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by C. Soulay and D. Recchia, Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by applying the special scheme for travel agents even when the travel service is sold to someone other than the traveller, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 306-310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission is of the view that the Italian Republic’s application of the special scheme for travel agents, inasmuch as it is not limited to services to travellers, as provided by the directive, but is extended to cover transactions between travel agencies too, is contrary to the provisions of the VAT legislation.

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the necessary legal and administrative measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2010/5/EU of 8 February 2010 amending Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include acrolein as an active substance in Annex I thereto (1), or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;
3.

If the previous question must be answered in the affirmative, must the aforementioned shares or interests equivalent to shares be understood to include shares in companies which, directly or indirectly (by means of (sub-) subsidiaries), own immovable property, regardless of whether they exploit it as such or whether they utilise it in the context of a different type of undertaking?
1.

Does payment or non-payment of remuneration to a worker during leave of absence from work on trade union business constitute a working condition or employment condition under European Union law (‘EU law’) and, in particular, do provisions of law allowing unpaid leave for union business to be granted to workers with a fixed-term employment relationship in the public sector who do not hold an established post and who are officials of a trade union organisation introduce a ‘working condition’ within the meaning of Article 137(1)(b) EC and an ‘employment condition’ in accordance with Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement [Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP] or does this question come within the areas of pay and the right of association to which EU law does not apply?
2.

If the answer to the first question is negative: do Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts preclude the application of a provision of national law under which a court … upon annulling an arbitral award, is to continue the main proceedings (i.e. concerning the claim originally heard before the arbitration tribunal) without re-examining its territorial jurisdiction over such continuing proceedings, even though, if the claim against the consumer had been filed from the outset with a court and not an arbitration tribunal, the court with territorial jurisdiction for the proceedings would have been, from the outset, the court of the consumer’s place of residence?
2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative: Must Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 12 December 2007 or Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation and practice according to which, if the number of days to be worked each week is reduced to zero as a result of a lawful order specifying ‘zero hours short-time working’, the entitlement to paid annual leave of a worker on short-time working is adjusted pro rata to nothing and, as a result, during the period of ‘zero hours short-time working’, the short-time worker does not accrue any entitlement to annual leave?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 227/6

Appeal brought on 19 September 2011 by Smanor SA against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2011 in Case T-185/11 Smanor SA v European Commission, European Ombudsman

(Case C-474/11 P)

2012/C 227/09

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Smanor SA (represented by: J.-P. Ekeu, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, European Ombudsman

By order of 1 March 2012, the Court (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Smanor to bear its own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/30

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 29 June 2011 — J.J. Komen en Zonen Beheer Heerhugowaard B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-326/11)

2011/C 269/57

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: J.J. Komen en Zonen Beheer Heerhugowaard B.V.

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Must Article 13B(g), in conjunction with Article 4(3)(a), of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the supply of a building in respect of which, prior to its supply, the vendor had transformation work carried out with a view to the creation of a new building (refurbishment), work which was continued and completed by the purchaser after its supply, is not exempt from VAT?

(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).
3.

Can it be held that the addressee of the invoice is guilty of a lack of care when he does not verify either whether a legal relationship exists between the workers employed on a work site and the issuer of the invoice or whether the latter has fulfilled his tax-return obligations or any other obligations relating to those workers? Can it be held that such conduct constitutes an objective factor which demonstrates that the addressee of the invoice knew or ought to have known that he was participating in a transaction involving fraudulent evasion of VAT?
—

As regards variable work schedules, the obligation for the employer to notify the worker by notice five days in advance; a notice must furthermore be displayed at the beginning of the day containing the individual work schedule of each part-time worker; this notice must furthermore be retained for one year (Article 159 of the Programme Law);