ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Must Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as prohibiting national legal rules under which, when seeking to sell on the market of a Member State of the European Union articles of gold imported from another Member State which are permitted to be put on the market of that Member State (of export), those articles must be stamped with a mark, of an independent assay office authorised by a Member State, which confirms that the article bearing it has been assayed by that office and in which information intelligible to consumers of the Member State of import concerning the article’s standard of fineness is specified, in circumstances where such information concerning the standard of fineness is provided in a separate and additional mark or marking stamped on the same article of gold?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 399/14

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cosenza (Italy) lodged on 19 October 2012 — CCIAA di Cosenza v CIESSE SRL in liquidation

(Case C-468/12)

2012/C 399/24

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Cosenza

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura (CCIAA) di Cosenza

Defendant: CIESSE SRL in liquidation

Question referred

Do the Italian rules governing the methods for calculating the annual duty to be paid by all persons engaged in economic activity conflict with Article 5 of Directive 2008/7/EC (1) of 12 February 2008 in so far as they place a significantly greater burden on the operation of a business activity by a capital company (‘capital company’ being understood in the exhaustive sense provided for in [Directive 2008/7/EC]) than by a sole trader, inasmuch as under those rules (i) sole traders pay fixed annual duty of EUR 200 if registered in the ordinary section or EUR 88 if noted in the special section, (ii) società semplici agricole (agricultural partnerships) pay fixed annual duty of EUR 100 (in addition to EUR 20 for each local unit), (iii) local units and/or branches of undertakings having their seat abroad pay fixed duty of EUR 110, (iv) non-agricultural partnerships pay fixed duty of EUR 200, and (v) law firms pay fixed duty of EUR 200, whereas all other collective economic undertakings (companies, consortia, and so on) are required to pay ‘duty as a proportion of the preceding year’s turnover’ (thereby paying as much as EUR 40 000)?

(1) Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 2008 L 46, p. 11).
1.

Is Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community to be interpreted as precluding a national rule (Article 97 of Ley 48/1960 de Navegación Aérea) that requires passenger airlines to grant passengers the right always to check in a suitcase without paying a supplement or surcharge on top of the base price of the ticket purchased?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/33

Appeal brought on 19 November 2012 by TeamBank AG Nürnberg against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2012 in Case T-220/11 TeamBank AG Nürnberg v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-524/12 P)

2013/C 9/56

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (represented by: D. Terheggen, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-220/11 in its entirety;

— grant in full the applications made at first instance in its application of 18 April 2011 before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The General Court misapplied Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in finding there to be a likelihood of confusion between ‘f@ir Credit’ and ‘FERCREDIT’.

Contrary to the view taken by the General Court, there is a clear visual difference in the overall impressions of the two signs. Furthermore, account needs to be taken of the fact that the signs in dispute relate to financial services, which usually have significant financial consequences for their users. Thus, it is to be assumed that the average consumer will examine these signs particularly carefully and are highly likely to recognise the differences between them. However, the General Court did not adequately examine that circumstance.

On a correct assessment of that circumstance and the differences in the overall impression of both signs there are no relevant similarities between the signs.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/32

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte (Portugal) lodged on 12 November 2012 — Joaquim Fernando Macedo Maia and Others v Fundo de Garantia Salarial, IP

(Case C-511/12)

2013/C 26/60

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Joaquim Fernando Macedo Maia, António Pereira Teixeira, António Joaquim Moreira David, Joaquim Albino Moreira David

Defendant: Fundo de Garantia Salarial, IP

Question referred

Is European Union law, in the specific context of a guarantee covering wage claims in the event of the employer’s insolvency, in particular Articles 4 and 10 of Directive 80/987/EEC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which guarantees only claims falling due in the six months preceding the initiation of insolvency proceedings against the employer, even where the employees have brought an action against their employer before the Tribunal do Trabalho (Labour Court) with a view to obtaining a judicial determination of the amount outstanding and an enforcement order to recover those sums?

(1) Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/38

Appeal brought on 28 November 2012 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered on 10 October 2012 by the General Court (Second Chamber) in Case T-158/09 Greece v Commission

(Case C-547/12 P)

2013/C 26/72

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias and S. Papaioannou)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

— grant the appeal and set aside the contested judgment of the General Court of the European Union in so far as the General Court held that in Case 4 Magrizos II, EL./1995/017, the Commission lawfully attributed negligence to the Greek authorities as regards failure to recover the relevant financial sums;

— uphold the first plea in law in the action for annulment of the Commission decision because, in that case, the legal conditions for applying Article 32 of Regulation No 1290/2005 and for the Commission’s charging of the sum of EUR 276 347,86 to the Hellenic Republic were not met;

— order the Commission to pay the Hellenic Republic’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court, distorting the clear sense of the evidence in the case-file, appraised the facts incorrectly in Case 4 Magrizos II, EL./1995/017, reaching the erroneous conclusion that in that case the legal conditions for applying Article 32 of Regulation No 1290/2005 and for the Commission’s charging of the sum of EUR 276 347,86 to the Hellenic Republic were met.
—

Declare that, by not having adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2009/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC (1) or, in any event, by not having notified those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 72(1) of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/16

Appeal brought on 6 December 2012 by El Corte Inglés, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2012 in Case T-39/10: El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-578/12 P)

2013/C 46/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: El Corte Inglés, SA (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela, abogada, J.L. Rivas Zurdo, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Emilio Pucci International BV

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the judgment of the General Court of 27th September, 2012 in case T-39/10 in its entirety.

— Order the OHIM to pay the costs incurred by El Corte Inglés, SA.

— Order Emilio Pucci International BV to pay the costs incurred by El Corte Inglés, SA.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that there exists likelihood of confusion (article 8.1.b CTMR (1)) between the earlier trademarks ‘EMIDIO TUCCI’ and ‘E. TUCCI’ and the contested CTM application ‘PUCCI’, in respect of all the designated products in classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 25 and 28, as it has proved genuine use of all its Spanish trademarks and there is one trademark (community trademark application No. 3679528) which is not subject to this obligation, and the signs in controversy are confusingly similar. In addition, the conditions for the application of Article 8(5) CTMR 2009 are also fulfilled in the present case, as the earlier registrations enjoy a reputation in Spain in respect of articles related to fashion and the use of a similar sign by a third party would be detrimental to, and take unfair advantage of, such reputation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 78, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 71/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 3 December 2012 — KONE AG, Otis GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

(Case C-557/12)

2013/C 71/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: KONE AG, Otis GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH

Respondent: ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

Question referred

Is Article 101 TFEU (Article 81 EC, Article 85 of the EC Treaty) to be interpreted as meaning that any person may claim from members of a cartel damages also for the loss which he has been caused by a person not party to the cartel who, benefiting from the protection of the increased market prices, raises his own prices for his products more than he would have done without the cartel (umbrella pricing), so that the principle of effectiveness laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union requires grant of a claim under national law?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Winsen (Luhe) (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2012 — Andrea Merten v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

(Case C-590/12)

2013/C 46/31

Language of the case: German

Referring Court

Amtsgericht Winsen (Local Court, Winsen) (Luhe)

Parties in the main proceedings

Applicant: Andrea Merten

Defendant: ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

Question referred

Should Article 15(1), first sentence, of Directive 90/619/EEC, (1) in consideration of Article 31(1) of Directive 92/96/EEC (2) as amended by Articles 35 and 36, in conjunction with Article 32, of Directive 2002/83/EC, (3) be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a provision — such as Article 5a(2), fourth indent, of the German Insurance Contracts Act (VVG), as amended by the third Law transposing the Directives of the Council of the European Communities on insurance law of 21 July 1994 — under which the insurance policy holder’s right to withdrawal or objection expires, at the latest, one year after the payment of the first insurance premium, even if the policy holder was not adequately informed of the right to withdrawal or objection?

(1) Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (Second Life Assurance Directive) (OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50).

(2) Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1).

(3) Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 05 November 2002 concerning life assurance (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 10 December 2012 — Reggiani SpA Illuminazione v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-618/12)

2013/C 101/19

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Reggiani SpA Illuminazione

Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Question referred

Does Article 2 of [the] Directive [79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979] (1) infringe freedom of establishment in that it limits entitlement to a refund to just moveable property?

(1) Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2012 — Ehrmann AG v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.

(Case C-609/12)

2013/C 101/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ehrmann AG

Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.

Question referred

Was it necessary to comply with the duty to provide information under Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1) in 2010?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9, and Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the list of nutrition claims (Text with EEA relevance) OJ 2010 L 37, p. 16.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge (Belgium) lodged on 20 December 2012 — JETAIR NV, BTW-eenheid BTWE Travel4you v FOD FINANCIËN

(Case C-599/12)

2013/C 86/13

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: JETAIR NV, BTW-eenheid BTWE Travel4you

Defendant: FOD FINANCIËN

Questions referred

1. Was Belgium entitled to amend its legislation by taxing an exempt service — in this case, journeys outside the EU — at a point in time (1 December 1977) just before the introduction of the Sixth VAT Directive (1) (1 January 1978) and thus circumvent the standstill provision in Article 28(3) of the Sixth Directive (now Article 370 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC), (2) which provides that the journeys referred to may continue to be taxed only if they were already taxed prior to the adoption of the Sixth Directive?

2. Should Belgium have refrained from taxing journeys outside the EU as of 13 June 1977 (the date of publication of the Sixth Directive)?

3. Does Belgium infringe Article 309 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC by not treating travel agents, as regards their services outside the Community, as intermediaries and continuing nevertheless to tax those services?

4. Do Articles 309, 153 and 370 of, and Annex X to, Council Directive 2006/112/EC infringe the general principles of Community law, the principle of equality, the principle of proportionality and the provisions concerning the free movement of persons, goods and services, inter alia, Articles 43 and 56 of the EC Treaty, by giving Member States the right to choose whether or not to tax services relating to journeys outside the Community?

5. Is it contrary to the principles of Community law, in particular the principles of equality and proportionality and the principle of neutrality with regard to VAT, for the Belgian State, by Royal Decree of 28 November 1999, to have made only travel agents, but not intermediaries, taxable with regard to journeys outside the EU?

(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 225/56

Appeal brought on 23 November 2012 by Rafael Faet Oltra against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2012 in Case T-294/12 Rafael Faet Oltra v European Ombudsman

(Case C-535/12 P)

2013/C 225/105

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Rafael Faet Oltra (represented by: R. Faet Oltra, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman

By order of 6 June 2013, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 24 December 2012 — Welmory Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku

(Case C-605/12)

2013/C 79/15

Language of the case: Polish

Requesting court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Welmory Sp. z o.o.

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku

Question referred

For the purposes of the taxation of services supplied by company A, which is established in Poland, to company B, which is established in another Member State of the European Union, in circumstances where company B carries out its economic activity by making use of company A’s infrastructure, is the fixed establishment within the meaning of Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) situated in the place in which company A is established?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 147/2

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgerichts Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2013 — Petra Würker v Familienkasse Nürnberg

(Case C-32/13)

2013/C 147/03

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Sozialgerichts Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Petra Würker

Respondent: Familienkasse Nürnberg

Question referred

1. Must Articles 77 or 78 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted as meaning that receipt of a child raising pension (Erziehungsrente) confers a right against the Member State which pays the pension?

2. Has the situation changed from 1 May 2010 with the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (2) and must Article 67 of that regulation be interpreted as meaning that any type of pension (including a German child raising pension) triggers the right?

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 71/12

Appeal brought on 10 January 2013 by Gérard Buono. Jean-Luc Buono, Roger Del Ponte, Serge Antoine Di Rocco, Jean Gérald Lubrano, Jean Lubrano, Jean Lucien Lubrano, Fabrice Marin, Robert Marin against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 7 November 2012 in Case T-574/08 Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens and Others v Commission

(Case C-12/13 P)

2013/C 71/18

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Gérard Buono, Jean-Luc Buono, Roger Del Ponte, Serge Antoine Di Rocco, Jean Gérald Lubrano, Jean Lubrano, Jean Lucien Lubrano, Fabrice Marin, Robert Marin (represented by: A. Arnaud and P-O. Koubi-Flotte, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens, Marc Carreno, Jean Lous Donnarel, Jean-François Flores, Gérald Jean Lubrano, Hervé Marin, Nicolas Marin, Sébastien Marin, Serge Antoine José Perez

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment of 7 November 2012 in Case T-574/08;

— Order the Union to pay them the following sums: — For Mr Gérard Buono (appellant No 1) and Mr Jean Luc Buono (appellant No 2), acting jointly in respect of their boats GERARD LUC III and IV, the sum of EUR 1 523 588,94 is sought; — For Mr Roger Del Ponte (appellant No 3), acting in respect of the boat ROGER CHRISTIAN IV, the sum of EUR 1 068 600 is sought; — For Mr Serge Antoine Di Rocco (appellant No 4), acting in respect of the boat ANNE ANTOINE II, the sum of EUR 1 094 800 is sought; — For Mr Jean Gérald Lubrano (appellant No 5), acting in respect of the boat VILLE D’ARZEW II, the sum of EUR 855 628,20 is sought; — For Mr Jean Lubrano (appellant No 6) and Mr Jean Lucien Lubrano (appellant No 7), acting jointly in respect of their boats GERALD JEAN III and IV, the sum of EUR 1 523 588,94; — For Mr Fabrice Marin (appellant No 8) and Mr Robert Marin (appellant No 9), acting jointly for their boat ERIC MARIN, the sum of EUR 865 784,59 is sought;

— In the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court to enable it to rule again on the basis of the solutions given by the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants rely on three pleas in law in support of their appeal.

First, the appellants complain that the General Court wrongly assessed the harm suffered by them in the context of the plea referring to non-contractual liability for an illegal act.

Second, the appellants maintain that the General Court, by not carrying out a correct assessment of the harm individually suffered by each appellant, infringed fundamental rights guaranteed under European Union law.

Third, and in the alternative, the appellants complain that the General Court failed to acknowledge, on the basis of the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, non-contractual liability for a lawful act.