ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Does the second sentence, in conjunction with the first sentence, [b], of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) justify a court of a Member State in referring to the Court of Justice of the European Union questions on the interpretation of EU law which have been put to the national court in connection with the legality of a national law, even if the national court not only has doubts concerning the legality of the national law under EU law, but is also certain that the national law is inconsistent with the national Constitution and therefore, in a parallel case, the national court has already sought a decision from the Constitutional Court which, under national law, alone has jurisdiction to decide on the constitutionality of laws, but the Constitutional Court has not yet given a decision? If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/27

Action brought on 18February 2014 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-87/14)

2014/C 102/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren, M. van Beek, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that:by failing to apply the provisions of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of working time to the organisation of the working time of junior doctors (non-consultant hospital doctors), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3, 5, 6, 17(2) and 17(5) of the Directive.

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 3

Ireland has failed to ensure, with regard to junior doctors, that they are provided with the minimum daily rest period per 24 hours.

Article 5

Ireland has failed to ensure that junior doctors are provided with the minimum uninterrupted rest period per each seven day period.

Article 6

Ireland has failed to ensure that that the average working time for each seven day period does not exceed 48 hours.

Article 17(2)

Ireland has failed to ensure that junior doctors are afforded equivalent periods of compensatory rest when required to work without having recourse to the rest periods indicated in Articles 3 and 5.

Article 17(5)

Ireland has not ensured that doctors in training do not exceed the weekly working time after the end of the transitional period laid down in Article 17(5).

(1) OJ L 299, p. 9
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 22 January 2014 — Ryanair Ltd, Other party: PR Aviation BV

(Case C-30/14)

2014/C 135/20

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd

Other party: PR Aviation BV

Question referred

Does the operation of the [Database Directive] (1) also extend to online databases which are not protected by copyright on the basis of Chapter II of the Directive, and also not by a sui generis right on the basis of Chapter III, in the sense that the freedom to use such databases through the (whether or not analogous) application of Articles 6(1) and 8 in conjunction with Article 15 [of the Database Directive], may not be limited contractually?

(1) Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/14

Appeal brought on 18 February 2014 by Forgital Italy SpA against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 4 December 2013 in Case T-438/10 Forgital Italy SpA v Council of the European Union

(Case C-84/14 P)

2014/C 129/17

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Forgital Italy SpA (represented by: R. Mastroianni and V. Turinetti di Priero, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought

Forgital Italy claims that the Court should:

— set aside the order of 4 December 2013 in Case T-438/10 by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the action for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 566/2010 of 29 June 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products (OJ 2010 L 163, p. 4), in so far as that regulation alters the designation of certain goods in respect of which the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties are suspended;

— refer Case T-438/10 back to the General Court for judgment, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union;

— order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Forgital Italy alleges infringement of the following: Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; the right to an effective remedy referred to in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; the general principle of effective judicial protection of rights; and the right of defence. It submits that the General Court erred in law in so far as it raised an objection of inadmissibility of its own motion in respect of the action brought by Forgital Italy in Case T-438/10 without setting out the reasons of fact and law on which that objection was based or allowing the parties to submit their comments in that regard, as required under Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. In that regard, the fact that the General Court addressed a question to the parties relating to the possible implications for Case T-438/10 of its order of 5 February 2013 in Case T-551/11 BSI v Council is irrelevant, because, contrary to the finding of the General Court, the parties should not have been required to infer from that question that the General Court was considering the possibility of raising an objection of inadmissibility of its own motion.

Secondly, Forgital Italy claims that the General Court erred in law with regard to the interpretation of the last part of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, in conjunction with the general principle of effective judicial protection referred to in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. According to Forgital Italy, Council Regulation (EU) No 566/2010 of 29 June 2010 does not constitute a regulatory act which entails implementing measures.
2.

If the reply to the first question is that the limitation period does not begin until the occurrence of the prejudice: In connection with a demand for repayment of an export refund which has been definitively granted, is there already prejudice within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 when an amount equal to the export refund within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 565/80 has been paid to the exporter, without the security under Article 6 of that regulation having already been released, or is there no prejudice until the release of the security or the definitive grant of the export refund?
2.

Is the administrative practice of the Natsionalna Agentsia po prihodite (National Income Tax Agency), according to which persons liable to VAT within the meaning of the Zakon za danan varhu dobaveneta stoynost (VAT law) are denied the right to deduct input tax in cases where there is no proof of the origin of the goods, without suspicion of involvement in tax fraud having being expressed and/or objective evidence provided by the tax authorities which would indicate that the taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right to deduct was connected with tax fraud?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/28

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 6 March 2014 — FCD — Fédération des entreprises du commerce et de la distribution, FMB — Fédération des magasins de bricolage et de l’aménagement de la maison v Ministre de l’écologie, du développement durable et de l’énergie

(Case C-106/14)

2014/C 142/35

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: FCD — Fédération des entreprises du commerce et de la distribution, FMB — Fédération des magasins de bricolage et de l’aménagement de la maison

Defendant: Ministre de l’écologie, du développement durable et de l’énergie

Question referred

‘Where an “article” within the meaning of Regulation No 1907/2006 (REACH) (1) is composed of several elements which themselves meet the definition of “article” given by the regulation, are the obligations resulting from Article 7(2) and Article 33 of the regulation to apply only with regard to the assembled article or with regard to each of the elements which meet the definition of “article”?’

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Cartagena (Spain) lodged on 14 March 2014 — Aktiv Kapital Portfolio Investments v Ángel Luis Egea Torregrosa

(Case C-122/14)

2014/C 159/19

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Cartagena

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aktiv Kapital Portfolio Investments

Defendant: Ángel Luis Egea Torregrosa

Question referred

Must Directive 93/13 (1) be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law like the Spanish legislation that does not allow the court to review of its own motion in limine litis, in the subsequent enforcement procedure, the judicial enforceable instrument — an order made by the court bringing the order-for-payment proceedings to an end in the absence of any objections — in order to ascertain whether there are unfair terms in the contract that served as a basis for the issue of that decree whose enforcement is sought, because national law considers the matter to be res judicata — Articles 551 and 552 of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil [Code of Civil Procedure] in conjunction with Article 816(2) thereof?

(1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/19

Action brought on 31 March 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia

(Case C-151/14)

2014/C 159/26

Language of the case: Latvian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Rubene and H. Stølbæk)

Defendant: Republic of Latvia

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— hold that it is not permissible to consider that the functions of a notary, as currently regulated by the Latvian legal system, constitute an exercise of official authority of the Member State, within the meaning of the exception set out in the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and accordingly, hold that, in setting out a requirement of nationality for appointment as a notary, the Republic of Latvia’s legislation discriminates on grounds of nationality prohibited by Article 49 of the Treaty.

— hold that, in making an appointment as a notary subject to a requirement of nationality, the Republic of Latvia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 of the Treaty.

— order the Republic of Latvia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that the nationality requirement for access to the notarial profession is discriminatory and constitutes a disproportionate restriction on freedom of establishment. Consequently, the Republic of Latvia has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The Commission submits that, by their nature, functions assigned to a notary in the Republic of Latvia’s legislation are not related to the exercise of official authority and that, consequently, the requirement of nationality for access to the notarial profession cannot be justified by the exception set out in Article 51 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
—

Declare that the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(4) of Council Directive 91/676/ΕEC of 12 December 1991 (1) concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources in that it failed to designate areas which are characterised by the presence of bodies of groundwater or surface waters which are affected or are likely to be affected by an excessive concentration of nitrates and/or the phenomenon of eutrophification as ‘nitrate vulnerable zones’ (NVZ), a designation which ought to have been made on the basis of the available data and in that, additionally, by not having established the action programmes which are specified in Article 5 of that directive within one year after the designations referred to in Article 3(4) of the directive, the Hellenic Republic also infringed the provisions of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/676/ΕEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources;
1.

Is Article 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that the ability to dispose of tangible property as owner also includes the right to instruct a carrier to deliver the goods to a third person other than the intended recipient stated on the invoice, and, on that basis, the receipt of the goods by that person on its own constitutes proof of previously effected supplies of goods?
1.

Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as precluding entirely an action brought against the Hellenic Republic as defendant and instituted before the Landgericht Aachen, by which the applicant seeks interest from the defendant for the period 2011/2012 in respect of bonds (government bonds) — issued by the defendant and purchased by the applicant in July 2011 — which were the subject-matter of the exchange offer made by the defendant at the end of February 2012 to, among others, the applicant, and which the applicant rejected, with the result that the defendant none the less exchanged the bonds/government bonds held by the applicant for new ones?
3.

Specifically, the appellants put forward four grounds of appeal: — The first ground of appeal concerns the new award criterion which was added in the tendering procedure but was not provided for within the technical specifications. In respect of this ground, the appellants challenge by this appeal the distortion of their plea in law and of the arguments put forward in their written pleadings, and also failure to state reasons. — The second ground of appeal concerns the assessment of a qualitative selection criterion as an award criterion. In respect of this ground, the appellants challenge by this appeal an error of assessment, misinterpretation and misapplication of European Union law, and a failure to state reasons. — The third ground of appeal concerns the assessment of the experience acquired from previous contracts with the same award criteria. In respect of this ground, the appellants challenge by this appeal misinterpretation and misapplication of European Union law, an error of assessment and failure to state reasons. — The fourth ground of appeal concerns the assessment of a criterion of which objective marking was not possible. In respect of this ground, the appellants challenge by this appeal a manifest error of assessment, misapplication of European Union law and failure to state reasons.
—

Declare that by failing to adopt provisions transposing the definitions laid down in Article 2, letters (f), (h), (m), (n) and (o), and the requirements laid down in Article 3(2) and (4), Article 5, Article 13(1), letters (a) to (e), Article 15(6), letter (e), Article 16(1), (3), (5), (6), (7), second sentence, and (8), Article 17 (1) to (5), Article 17(6) regarding bioliquids, Article 17(8), Article 18(1) and (3) regarding biolquids, Article 18(7), Article 19(1) and (3), Article 21(1), second sentence, and Annexes II to V and VII of Directive 2009/28/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27(1) of that Directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/10

Action brought on 4 April 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-162/14)

2014/C 202/11

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by maintaining in force grounds for exclusion of economic operators from participation in tendering procedures, as contained in Article 24(1).1 and 1a of the Law governing public contracts (Prawo zamówień publicznych), which go beyond the substantive legal criteria of the exhaustive list of exclusions contained in Article 45(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1), the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45(2) of that directive;

— Order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The grounds for excluding an economic operator from a tendering procedure by reason of his professional characteristics as laid down in Article 24(1).1 and 1a of the Law governing public contracts, that is to say, because of (i) the fact that that operator occasioned damage, confirmed by a decision having the force of law, by reason of the non-performance or improper performance of a contract, and (ii) the fact that the economic operator was a party to a contract which the contracting authority cancelled, terminated or renounced by reason of circumstances for which that economic operator bears responsibility, go beyond the scope of the grounds for exclusion set out in Article 45(2), in particular Article 45(2)(d), of Directive 2004/18/EC.

The interpretation of the latter ground was the subject-matter of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-465/11 Forposta and ABC Direct Contact. The Court held in that judgment that the term ‘grave professional misconduct’ in Article 45(2)(d) of Directive 2004/18/EC has to be construed as covering all wrongful conduct which has an impact on the professional credibility of the operator concerned. The Polish grounds for exclusion, however, are not limited solely to conduct on the part of economic operators which points to wrongful intent or negligence of a certain gravity on their part, but require the contracting authority automatically to exclude the operator concerned without carrying out a prior assessment of the wrongful conduct alleged against him.

(1) OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/11

Action brought on 28 May 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-263/14)

2014/C 235/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, A. Caiola, M. Allik, agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision 2014/198/CFSP of 10 March 2014 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the United Republic of Tanzania on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the United Republic of Tanzania (1);

— order that the effects of Council Decision 2014/198/CFSP of 10 March 2014 be maintained until it is replaced;

— order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament considers that Council Decision 2014/198/CFSP of 10 March 2014 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the United Republic of Tanzania on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the United Republic of Tanzania is invalid because it does not relate exclusively to the common foreign and security policy, as expressly provided for in Article 218(6), second paragraph, TFEU.

The European Parliament considers that the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Tanzania also relates to judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation, thus covering fields to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies.

Therefore, this Agreement should have been concluded under the substantive legal bases of Articles 37 TEU and 82 and 87 TFEU, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament under Article 218(6)(a) TFEU.

For this reason, the Council has violated the Treaties by failing to choose the appropriate legal basis for the conclusion of the Agreement.

Furthermore, the European Parliament considers that the Council has violated Article 218(10) TFEU, because it did not inform Parliament fully and immediately at all stages of negotiations and conclusion of the Agreement.

Should the Court of Justice annul the contested Decision, the European Parliament nonetheless proposes that the Court exercise its discretion to maintain the effects of the contested Decision, in accordance with Article 264, second paragraph, TFEU, until such time as it is replaced.

(1) OJ L 108, p. 1
1.

Is Article 22.1 of Law 16/09 of 13 November on payment services compatible with Community law, insofar as it allows a bank to apply and/or increase the cost of services by changing the conditions initially agreed upon?
1.

Can Article 28(1) of Directive 95/46/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (‘the data protection directive’) be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of national law of a Member State are applicable in its territory to a situation in which a data controller runs a property-dealing website established only in another Member State and also advertises properties situated in the territory of that first Member State and the property owners have forwarded their personal data to a facility (server) for data storage and data processing belonging to the operator of the website in that other Member State?