ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

The General Court erred in law in stating, in paragraph 57 of the judgment under appeal (contrary to what was set out in paragraph 52 thereof), that it could not be inferred from any of the commitments in Annex VII of the Act of Accession relied on by the appellants that the Republic of Croatia was obliged to establish the profession of public enforcement officer, nor could it be inferred, consequently, that the Commission was obliged to use the measures provided for in Article 36 of the Act of Accession for the purpose of preventing the repeal of the Law on public enforcement officers. The negotiations between the Republic of Croatia and the European Union were lengthy and, by contrast with the other chapters, Chapter 23 was the last and most difficult and, in accordance with the good practices of the European Union, dealt with the political criteria on which the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union was made conditional. The negotiations were concluded on 30 June 2011, after the Croatian Government submitted to the Presidency of the European Union, on 12 May 2011, a report on the fulfilment of the commitments in Chapter 23. In that report, the Republic of Croatia undertook 10 specific commitments in relation to the Treaty of Accession (Article 36 of the Act of Accession) and undertook to fulfil them. Commitment No 1 and Commitment No 3 (relating to the introduction of public enforcement officers), to the provisions of which the appellants refer in the proceedings, expressly oblige the Republic of Croatia to introduce public enforcement officers.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/16

Appeal brought on 21 January 2016 by Matratzen Concord GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 in Case T-526/14 Matratzen Concord GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-35/16 P)

(2016/C 270/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (represented by: I. Selting, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Mariano Barranco Rodriguez, Pablo Barranco Schnitzler

By order of 28 April 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
1.

Must Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a regional tax imposed on the use of individual large retail spaces with sales areas covering 2 500 m2 or more due to their potential effect on planning, the environment and urban retailing patterns in the region, but which, as a matter of law, applies irrespective of whether or not such retail establishments are actually situated in a consolidated urban area and in practice usually affects undertakings from other Member States, given that: (i) it does not affect traders who own several retail establishments, each with sales areas of less than 2 500 m2, whatever the total sales area of all of those establishments together; (ii) it exempts collective retail establishments; (iii) it excludes individual retail establishments which are garden centres and those selling vehicles, building materials, machinery and industrial supplies; and (iv) retail establishments given over essentially to the sale of furniture, sanitary ware and doors and windows and those that are do-it-yourself stores are required to pay the tax on only 40 % of the relevant net tax base?
ii.

If the answer to (i) is in the affirmative, should Chapter IV of the Maintenance Regulations be interpreted so as to mean that each member state is obliged to provide a procedure or mechanism such as will enable the right to be recognised?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/18

Appeal brought on 29 March 2016 by Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2016 in Case T-247/14: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-182/16 P)

(2016/C 296/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: S. Labesius, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal partially and annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office insofar as the remainder of the action before the General Court has been dismissed, in the alternative, to refer the case back to the General Court insofar, and

— order the defendant and the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the defendant to bear the cost of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on an infringement of Union law by the General Court in so far as the General Court in its judgment of 4 February 2016 infringed Article 8 (1) (b) of Council Regulation No. 207/2009 (1) on the Community trade mark and Art. 296 (2) TFEU.

In summary, the General Court erred in its assessment of the likelihood of confusion based on the level of distinctiveness of the earlier mark ‘MINI WINI’ and of the similarity of signs and goods with the EUTM application ‘Stick MiniMINI …’, also regarding the independent distinctive role of the element ‘MiniMINI’ within the application. In addition, the General Court did not consider that also inherently weak elements of a trademark contribute to a likelihood of confusion, as well as the specific circumstances of the distribution of products influencing the level of attention of the relevant public and its tendency to abbreviate a mark by a weak, but visually dominant element.

Further, the General Court erred in law, because even if a verbal element should be considered to have a purely descriptive character, such character does not preclude that element from being acknowledged as dominant for the purposes of assessing the similarity of the signs. Also, the decision of the General Court was based on a distortion of the facts regarding the assessment of the dominant elements regarding their size and position within the sign of the contested EUTM application. In addition, the General Court erred in law when it stated that visual similarity is to be assessed dependently from the degree of the distinctiveness of visual elements of the contested EUTM application. Finally, the judgment under appeal was not properly motivated insofar as the General Court failed to deliver reasons concerning the level of attention of the relevant public concerning the specific goods at issue.

(1) OJ L 78, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 30 May 2016 — Solar Electric Martinique v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

(Case C-303/16)

(2016/C 287/19)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Solar Electric Martinique

Respondent: Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

Question referred

Does the sale and installation of photovoltaic panels and solar water heaters on buildings, or with a view to supplying electricity or hot water to buildings, constitute a single transaction that may be characterised as works of construction for the purposes of Article 5(5) and Article 6(1) of 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) now Article 14(3) and Article 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (2)

(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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/15

Appeal brought on 11 July 2016 by European Union Copper Task Force against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-310/15: European Union Copper Task Force v European Commission

(Case C-384/16 P)

(2016/C 314/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union Copper Task Force (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, C. Vila Gisbert, abogadas)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Order of the Third Chamber of the General Court of the European Union of 27 April 2016 in Case T-310/15, European Union Copper Task Force v. European Commission.

— Declare the admissibility of the action for annulment lodged by the European Copper Task Force against the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408.

— Refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment.

— Order the European Commission to pay the costs generated by these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. The General Court committed an error of law by considering that Implementing Regulation 2015/408 (1) is a regulatory act that entails implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

2. The General Court committed an error of law by considering that the dismissal of the EUCuTF’s action would not impair its right and its members’ right to effective judicial protection.

3. The General Court committed an error of law by considering that the EUCuTF and its members were not individually affected by Implementing Regulation 2015/408.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 of 11 March 2015 on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution. OJ L 67, p. 18
1.

Is the action brought by an employer established in Austria seeking compensation for the damage passed on to that employer as a result of the continued payment of remuneration to its employee domiciled in Austria a ‘matter relating to insurance’ within the meaning of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, (1) in the case where (a) the employee was injured in a road traffic accident in a Member State (Italy), (b) the action is brought against the civil-liability insurer, domiciled in another Member State (France), of the vehicle at fault, and (c) the employer is established as a public-law institution with legal personality?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 326/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie (Poland) lodged on 28 January 2016 — Halina Grodecka; intervening parties: Józef Konieczka and Others

(Case C-50/16)

(2016/C 326/15)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring Court

Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie

Parties to the main proceedings

Halina Grodecka; intervening parties: Józef Konieczka and Others

By order of 2 June 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) declared that it manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie (Poland).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 326/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland, sitting in Groningen (Netherlands), lodged on 27 May 2016 — Bas Jacob Adriaan Krijgsman v Surinaamse Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

(Case C-302/16)

(2016/C 326/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Nederland, sitting in Groningen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bas Jacob Adriaan Krijgsman

Defendant: Surinaamse Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

Question referred

What (procedural and substantive) requirements must be imposed on the performance of the obligation to inform referred to in Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) in the case where the contract for carriage has been entered into via a travel agent or the booking has been made via a website?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
‘1.

Against the background in particular of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) enshrining the principle of good administration, does the exception of “cases covered by criminal law” — found at the end of Article 54(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC, (1) and at the beginning of Article 54(3) — cover a situation concerning, according to national law, an administrative sanction, but considered from the point of view of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) to be part of criminal law, such as the sanction at issue in the main proceedings, imposed by the national regulator, the national supervisory authority, and consisting in ordering a member of the national bar association to cease holding a post as director or any other post subject to accreditation in an entity supervised by that regulator and ordering him to resign from all his posts at the earliest opportunity?
2.

On the hypothesis that the surrender of minors is not prohibited by Article 3.3 of the Framework Decision, should that provision then be interpreted: (a) as meaning that the existence of a (theoretical) possibility of being able to punish minors from a certain age in accordance with national law suffices as a criterion for granting the surrender (in other words, by carrying out an assessment in abstracto on the basis of the criterion of the age from which someone can be regarded as criminally responsible, without taking into account any possible further conditions)?; or (b) as meaning that neither the principle of mutual recognition, as referred to in Article 1.2 of the Framework Decision, nor the text of Article 3.3 of the Framework Decision precludes the executing Member State from carrying out an assessment in concreto on a case-by-case basis, where it may be required that, so far as concerns the person whose surrender is sought, the same conditions for criminal responsibility must be met as those that apply to the nationals of the executing Member State, having regard to their age at the time of the acts, having regard to the nature of the alleged offence and possibly even having regard to the preceding judicial interventions in the issuing Member State which led to a measure of an educational nature, even if those conditions did not exist in the issuing Member State?
4.

If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative: does a transaction, which is exempt from VAT within a Member State under Article 132(1)(d) of the VAT Directive, irrespective of the rules on VAT applicable in a third country, lead to the exclusion of the entitlement to deduct input tax under Article 168 of the VAT Directive, even if that transaction constitutes a supply of goods to a third country for which the deduction applies under Article 169(b) of the VAT Directive, read in conjunction with Article 146(1) thereof?
4.

Does EU law, in particular Article 9(2) of Directive 97/67/EC, as supplemented and amended by Directive 2008/6/EC, precludes the application of national provisions, in particular Articles 6 and 10 of Legislative Decree No 261/1999, and Articles 11(1)(f) and 15(2) of the ‘Regulation governing qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in Annex A to Resolution AGCOM 129/15/CONS of 23 March 2015, and Article 9 of the related ‘Rules governing the procedure for the issue of qualifying certificates for the provision of postal services to the public’, referred to in the Decree of the Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico of 29 July 2015, in so far as they do not contain any assessment as to those cases in which the contribution to the compensation fund in respect of universal service costs can be described as appropriate, and do not lay down conditions for application which differ according both to the subjective circumstances of the contributors and to the markets?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/2

Appeal brought on 5 July 2016 by Ireland against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 April 2016 in joined cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II: Aughinish Alumina Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-369/16 P)

(2016/C 371/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, T. Joyce, agents, P. McGarry, Senior Counsel)

Other parties to the proceedings: Aughinish Alumina Ltd, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the Judgment

— annul the Decision (1)

— order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

Ireland relies on four pleas in this appeal:

a) The judgment of the General Court is wrong in law in circumstances where it held that the principle of legal certainty did not apply and/or did not avail Ireland and Aughinish Alumina Ltd, notwithstanding the inexcusable delay by the Commission in reaching the contested decision.

b) The General Court erred in law in finding that there was no violation of the principle of respect for legitimate expectations, despite the finding that the delay in the investigation by the Commission was unjustified and inexcusable.

c) The General Court erred in concluding that the aid in issue ‘corresponded with an aid scheme’ as defined in article 1(d) of Council Regulation 659/1999 (2); further the General Court erred in concluding that the limitation period in article 15 of Regulation 659/1999 ran from the date of each import of mineral oils by Aughinish Alumina Ltd.

d) The General Court erred in refusing to accede to the application on the basis that the aid could be defined as pre-accession existing aid.

(1) 2006/323/EC: Commission Decision of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel in a production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (notified under document number C (2005) 4436)

OJ L 119, p. 12

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1989 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty

OJ L 83, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 350/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 14 July 2016 — M v Ministerstvo vnitra

(Case C-391/16)

(2016/C 350/20)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: M

Defendant: Ministerstvo vnitra

Question referred

Is Article 14(4) and (6) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted invalid on the grounds that it infringes Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the general principles of EU law under Article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union?

(1) OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Areios Pagos (Greece) lodged on 4 August 2016 — Georgios Leventis, Nikolaos Vafeias v Malcon Navigation Co. Ltd, Brave Bulk Transport Ltd

(Case C-436/16)

(2016/C 392/14)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Areios Pagos (Greece)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Georgios Leventis, Nikolaos Vafeias

Respondents: Malcon Navigation Co. Ltd, Brave Bulk Transport Ltd

Question referred

Does the jurisdiction clause which has been agreed pursuant to Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) between companies and in the present case is included in the privately-executed agreement of 14 November 2007 between the first and second respondents, Article 10 of which provides that ‘the present agreement shall be governed by English law, it shall be subject to English jurisdiction and any dispute arising from or in connection with it shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court of England and Wales’, also encompass, as regards acts and omissions of the organs of the second respondent, who represent it and give rise to liability on its part pursuant to Article 71 of the Greek Civil Code, the persons responsible who acted in the performance of their duties and are liable under that article, in conjunction with Article 926 of the Greek Civil Code, jointly and severally with the company, a legal person?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: what are the criteria for determining whether an authority of the issuing Member State is such a ‘judicial authority’ and whether the EAW issued by it is consequently such a ‘judicial decision’?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/25

Appeal brought on 1 March 2016 by Anastasia-Soultana Gaki against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) made on 16 December 2015 in Case T-547/15, Anastasia-Soultana Gaki v European Commission

(Case C-130/16 P)

(2016/C 419/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Anastasia-Soultana Gaki (represented by: A. Heinen, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 22 September 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 17 August 2016 — Stadion Amsterdam CV; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-463/16)

(2016/C 410/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Stadion Amsterdam CV

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Must Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that where a service, which for VAT purposes constitutes one single service, comprises two or more concrete and specific constituent elements to which, if they had been provided as separate services, different VAT rates would apply, the levying of VAT in respect of that composite service should take place according to the separate rates applicable to those elements if the fee for the service can be split in correct proportion to those constituent elements?

(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.

Are Articles 168(а) and 169(а) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person who has been registered pursuant to Article 214(1)(e) of that directive is not entitled to deduct input tax declared by him in respect of supplies to him of services carried out by taxable persons from other Member States if he uses those supplies in order to provide services in other Member States and the other substantive and procedural conditions for the exercise of the right to deduct are satisfied?