ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
II.

a. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is Article 10(2), in conjunction with Article 2(f), of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be further interpreted as meaning that the ‘price of the ticket’ is the amount which the passenger has paid for all of the flights indicated on the ticket, even if the downgrading occurred on only one of the flights? b. If Question 1 is answered in the negative: For the purposes of determining the amount which forms the basis for the reimbursement under Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, must account be taken of the airline company’s published price for transportation, in the class booked, on the section affected by the downgrade, or must the quotient resulting from the distance of the section affected by the downgrade and the total length of the flight be determined and then multiplied by the total flight price?
2.

Must note 3 to Section XVII of the Combined Nomenclature be interpreted as meaning that a ‘weapons station (armoured turret)’ which may be used on armoured fighting vehicles or on ‘mobile maritime transport systems’ or in stationary installations must be classified under heading 8710 as a part of an armoured fighting vehicle because that weapons station was imported by the manufacturer of armoured fighting vehicles for the production or assembly of armoured fighting vehicles and is used in fact for that purpose?
1.

Where a Portuguese court hearing a civil action against an individual residing in another Member State of the European Union has ordered that notice of service of those proceedings be served on that individual by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt, and the corresponding acknowledgment of receipt has not been returned, may the Portuguese court consider, in the light of the above Regulation [EC 1393/2007] (1) and the principles underlying it, that such service was effected, on the basis of the documents of the postal authority of the state in which the addressee of the letter resides which prove that the registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt was delivered to the addressee?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/27

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 24 July 2015 — Noémie Depesme, Saïd Kerrou v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche

(Case C-401/15)

(2015/C 302/35)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Noémie Depesme, Saïd Kerrou

Respondent: Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche

Questions referred

In order properly to meet the requirements of non-discrimination under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 (1) on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, together with Article 45(2) TFEU, when taking into account the actual degree of attachment of a non-resident student, who has applied for financial aid for higher-education studies, with the society and with the labour market of Luxembourg, the Member State in which a frontier worker has been employed or has carried out his activity in the conditions referred to in Article 2 bis of the Law of 22 June 2000 on State financial aid for higher-education studies, as added by the Law of 19 July 2013 in direct consequence of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 20 June 2013 (Case C-20/12) (2),

— should the requirement that the student be the ‘child’ of that frontier worker be taken to mean that the student must be the frontier worker’s ‘direct descendant in the first degree whose relationship with his parent is legally established’, with the emphasis being placed on the child-parent relationship established between the student and the frontier worker, which is supposed to underlie the abovementioned attachment, or

— should the emphasis be placed on the fact that the frontier worker ‘continues to provide for the student’s maintenance’ without necessarily being connected to the student through a legal child-parent relationship, in particular where a sufficient link of communal life can be identified, of such a kind as to establish a connection between the frontier worker and one of the parents of the student with whom the child-parent relationship is legally established?

— From the latter perspective, where the contribution — presumably, non-compulsory — of the frontier worker is not exclusive but made in parallel with that of the parent or parents connected with the student through a legal child-parent relationship, and therefore in principle under a legal duty to maintain the student, must that contribution satisfy certain criteria as regards its substance?

(1) OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.

(2) EU:C:2013:411.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/14

Appeal brought on 28 January 2015 by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Case T-556/12: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Royalton Overseas Ltd

(Case C-36/15 P)

(2015/C 311/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Royalton Overseas Ltd, S.C. Romarose Invest Srl

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 29 April 2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 29 June 2015 — Google Ireland Limited, Google Italy Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

(Case C-322/15)

(2015/C 320/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Google Ireland Limited, Google Italy Srl

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

Question referred

Does Article 56 TFEU preclude application of contested Resolution No 397/13/CONS of the Autorità di garanzia delle Telecomunicazioni, and of the related provisions of national law, as interpreted along the lines proposed by that authority, which require the submission of complex ‘economic system information’ (which must be drawn up in accordance with Italian accounting standards) on the economic activities carried out in relation to Italian consumers, motivated by objectives of protecting competition but necessarily connected to the various and more limited institutional functions of that authority of safeguarding pluralism within the sector concerned, to operators which none the less do not come within the scope of the national legislation governing that sector (the Testo Unico dei Servizi di Media Audiovisivi e Radiofonici), and in particular, in the case under review here, to a national operator carrying out only services for its fellow subsidiary governed by Irish law and also, as regards the latter, to an operator not having its headquarters and not carrying on any business using employees within national territory; alternatively, does this constitute a measure restricting freedom to provide services within the European Union in breach of Article 56 TFEU?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/25

Appeal brought on 30 June 2015 by Hitachi Chemical Europe GmbH and Polynt SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2015 in Case T-135/13: Hitachi Chemical Europe GmbH, Polynt SpA and Sitre Srl v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

(Case C-324/15 P)

(2015/C 311/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Hitachi Chemical Europe GmbH and Polynt SpA (represented by: C. Mereu, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Sitre Srl, REACh ChemAdvice GmbH, New Japan Chemical, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-135/13; and

— Annul the contested decision or alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellants’ Application for annulment; and

— Order the Respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings, including the costs before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that, in dismissing their application for annulment of the Contested Decision, the General Court breached Community law. In particular, the Appellants contend that the General Court committed a number of errors in its reasoning and interpretation of the legal framework as applicable to the Appellants’ situation. That resulted in the General Court making the following errors in law:

— The General Court made contradictory and erroneous statements with respect to the need to have regard to risk assessment pursuant to Article 57(f) of REACH (1), leading to a misinterpretation of the same.

— The General Court made contradictory statements and departed from established case law on the status and weight of guidance documents in interpreting what is meant by ‘equivalent level of concern’ under Article 57(f) of the same.

— The General Court flawed reliance on Article 60(2) of REACH led to insufficient reasoning.

— The General Court applied the wrong legal text in dismissing the arguments relating to worker and consumer exposure, thereby misapplying Article 57(f).

For these reasons the Appellants claim that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-135/13 should be set aside and the Contested Decision should be annulled.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Autorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing an 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, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC AND 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396 p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 337/9

Appeal brought on 29 July 2015 by Stichting Woonpunt and Others against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) made on 12 May 2015 in Case T-203/10 RENV Stichting Woonpunt and Others v European Commission

(Case C-415/15 P)

(2015/C 337/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellants: Stichting Woonpunt, Stichting Havensteder, formerly Stichting Com.wonen, Woonstichting Haag Wonen, Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl (represented by: P. Glazener, advocaat, and L. Hancher, professor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside, in whole or in part, the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2015 in Case T-203/10 RENV, in accordance with the grounds raised in the present appeal;

— refer the case back to the General Court for a new ruling consistent with the legal findings of the Court of Justice;

— order the Commission to pay the costs both of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

According to the first ground, the General Court infringed EU law, incorrectly assessed the relevant facts and provided an inadequate statement of reasons for the order in finding that the then applicants’ objections were in fact directed against the Article 17 letter and that the General Court’s review could not be extended to those objections. By its assessment, the General Court disregards the fact that, as is apparent from Article 108(1) TFEU, the justification for the legal consequences of the decision must stem from the fact that the previous situation had been incompatible with the Treaty. The General Court misinterprets the TF1 judgment by inferring from it that its review of the contested decision had to be limited to the question of whether the Commission had correctly assessed the compatibility of the existing system of aid as modified by the commitments undertaken by the Netherlands authorities.

According to the second ground, the General Court infringed EU law, incorrectly assessed the relevant facts and provided an inadequate statement of reasons for the order in finding that it could not assess the appropriate measures proposed by the Commission given that they were mere proposals and that it was the adoption by the Netherlands authorities which gave the appropriate measures binding force.
5.

To what extent should a national court, in considering Article 15 of Regulation 2201/2003, have regard to the specific circumstances of the case, including the desire of a mother to move beyond the reach of the social services of her home state, and thereafter give birth to her child in another jurisdiction with a social services system she considers more favourable?
4.

If the reply to the previous question is in the affirmative, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to assume, in an individual action for nullity of an unfair term in a consumer contract, that there is a risk of serious disruption to financial public policy or must that risk be assessed and evaluated in the light of the specific economic data from which it is inferred that granting retroactive effects to a ruling that an unfair term is null and void has macroeconomic consequences?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varbergs tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 28 August 2015 — P v Q

(Case C-455/15)

(2015/C 346/12)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Varbergs tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: P

Defendant: Q

Question referred

Is Varbergs tingsrätt, in accordance with Article 23(a) of the Brussels II Regulation (1) or any provision [thereof] and notwithstanding Article 24 of that regulation, to refuse to recognise the judgment of the Silute District Court of 18 February 2015, see Annex A, and thus to continue to deal with the custody case pending before Varbergs tingsrätt?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/25

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 7 September 2015 — Sjelle Autogenbrug I/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-471/15)

(2015/C 363/32)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sjelle Autogenbrug I/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Question referred

In the circumstances of the present case, can parts from end-of-life vehicles which a VAT-registered vehicle reuse undertaking removes from a vehicle with a view to resale as spare parts be regarded as second-hand goods as referred to in Article 311(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (VAT Directive)?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: Is Article 41(1) in conjunction with Article 36(1) of the Payment Services Directive to be interpreted as meaning that in such a case (a) the information from the bank is indeed provided on a durable medium, but not notified to the customer, merely made accessible to him, or (b) all that happens is that the information is made accessible without the use of a durable medium?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 August 2015 — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Italsempione — Spedizioni Internazionali SpA

(Case C-450/15)

(2015/C 381/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Defendant: Italsempione — Spedizioni Internazionali SpA

Question referred

Does the principle of proportionality, which must guide the process of quantifying fines — as affirmed by Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — preclude an interpretation of Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1), in the version consolidated by the European Commission through the Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006/C 201/02), and practice, including national practice, according to which the fine to be applied to undertakings which have breached the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements is to be calculated by applying the circumstances to the basic amount resulting from the calculation of the various factors which have to be taken into account under EU law, and in any event before the reduction to 10 % of turnover, with the risk that the application of the extenuating circumstances to the basic amount may prove entirely unsuitable for having the effect of personalising the fine, the circumstances of which, by contrast, are predetermined by the adjustment of the relevant amount according to the characteristics of the specific case?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/24

Appeal brought on 23 September 2015 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (5th Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-561/13 Spain v Commission

(Case C-506/15 P)

(2015/C 381/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. A. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims the court should:

— In any event, allow the appeal and annul in part the judgment of the General Court, delivered on 15 July 2015, in Case T-561/13.

— Annul in part the contested decision to the extent that it excludes the expenditure, amounting to EUR 7 57 968,97, incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the context of the Indemnizaciones Compensatorias de las Desventajas Naturales (ICDN) (compensatory allowances for natural handicaps; CANH) aid of Galicia’s 2007-2013 Rural Development programme in respect of ‘natural handicaps (measures 211 and 212)’.

— In any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.

Grounds of Appeal and main arguments

First ground: In the first ground of appeal, the Kingdom of Spain contends that the General Court erred in law in not holding, of its own motion, that there was a substantial procedural defect, in that the European Commission adopted the contested decision outside a reasonable period.

Second ground: In the second ground of appeal, the appellant maintains that the General Court erred in law by infringing Articles 10 and 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 (1) of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures and Article 35 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 (2) of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, by holding that those provisions obliged the Spanish authorities to carry out a census of the animals during the on-the-spot checks.

(1) OJ L 368, p. 74.

(2) OJ L 141, p. 18.
1.

Should the first sentence of Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of the Air Transport Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and the United States of America, on the other hand (OJ 2007 L 134) be interpreted as meaning that it provides an effective right for a Community airline from Member State A to unload cargo, which was loaded in a third country, in another Member State B, following a stopover in the US during which that cargo is not unloaded, and that it is to that extent not necessary to rely on bilateral agreements between Member State B and a third country?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 August 2015 — Jürgen Webb-Sämann v Christopher Seagon (acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Baumarkt Praktiker DIY GmbH)

(Case C-454/15)

(2015/C 389/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hessisches Landesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jürgen Webb-Sämann

Defendant: Christopher Seagon (acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Baumarkt Praktiker DIY GmbH)

Question referred

Is a national understanding of a rule under which outstanding salary claims which were deposited with the employer in order to be paid over to a pension fund by a particular date but which were not paid by that employer into a separate account and therefore did not come within the scope of a right to have those claims excluded from insolvency proceedings in respect of the employer’s assets (Aussonderungsrecht) pursuant to Paragraph 47 of the German Insolvency Regulation contrary to Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC (1) or to other EU law?

(1) Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36).