ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

In so far as the import levy described in Article 21(5) of the Decree [of the Flanders Region] of 23 January 1991 on protection of the environment against fertiliser pollution, which is imposed only on the importation from the other Member States into the Flanders Region of surpluses of manure derived both from livestock manure and from other manure, cannot be regarded as a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty on imports, is that import levy to be regarded as constituting discriminatory taxation of the products of other Member States, within the terms of Article 110 TFEU, since livestock manure produced domestically is subject to a basic levy provided for by national legislation, the rate of which differs according to the production process, whereas in the case of imported surpluses of manure, irrespective of the production process (inter alia, the animal origin or the P2O5N content), an import levy is imposed at a uniform rate which is higher than the lowest rate of the basic levy for livestock manure produced in the Flanders Region (EUR 0.00), even though the Member State from which the surpluses of manure are exported itself provides for a reduction of the levy on the exportation of those surpluses of manure to other Member States?
1.

Must Articles 1, 2a, 2c and 2f of Directive 1992/13/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that time for the purposes of bringing proceedings for a declaration that there has been an infringement of the rules governing the award of public procurements contracts runs from the date on which the applicant became aware — or, through the exercise of ordinary diligence, ought to have become aware — of the existence of that infringement?
1.

Does the expression communication to the public, within the meaning of Article 3(1) (1) of the Information Society Directive, include measures to make available on a website open to the public a clickable link to a work which is broadcast by the holder of the copyright in that work?
1.

Is the imputability — required for purposes of classification as State aid within the meaning of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU — to the public authorities of a guarantee provided by a public undertaking necessarily precluded by the fact that that guarantee, as in the present case, was provided by the (sole) director of the public undertaking who, while he had the power to do so under civil law, acted on his own authority, deliberately kept the provision of the guarantee secret and ignored the requirements under the articles of association of the public undertaking by failing to seek the approval of the Raad van Commissarissen (Council of Commissioners), and where, furthermore, it must be assumed that the public body concerned (in this case, the Gemeente (Municipality)) did not want the guarantee to be provided?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Latina (Italy) lodged on 12 April 2013 — Francesco Acanfora v Equitalia Sud SpA and Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-181/13)

2013/C 207/08

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Latina

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Francesco Acanfora

Defendants: Equitalia Sud SpA — Agente di Riscossione Latina, Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Latina

Question referred

Does the 9 % commission premium (‘aggio’) [established by Legislative Decree No 112/1999, prior to the amendments which have been introduced] constitute State aid which is incompatible with the single market as regards fees for collection and with Community law pursuant to Article 107 TFEU?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/20

Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Savoia e Jolanda Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission

(Case C-235/13 P)

2013/C 207/33

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Savoia e Jolanda Srl (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’

Form of order sought

— Set aside the order of the General Court under appeal

— Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly, — annul, in so far as is reasonable and in so far as it concerns the appellant, European Commission Decision No 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995; — in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the relief granted and in so far as it requires interest to be added to the amount of relief to be recovered for the periods taken into consideration in the judgment;

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

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant raises nine grounds of appeal:

First ground: the General Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the measures in question did not confer any advantage upon their beneficiaries given their compensatory nature.

Second ground: the Court erred in not excluding, or at least assessing, the likelihood that the measures in question would affect competition and intra-Community trade.

Third ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(2)(b) EC (now Article 107(2)(b) TFEU) and Article 87(3)(b) EC (now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU) were inapplicable.

Fourth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) was inapplicable.

Fifth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(3)(d) and (e) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) and (e) TFEU) were inapplicable.

Sixth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 86(2) EC (now Article 106(2) TFEU) was inapplicable.

Seventh ground: the Court erred in not recognising the existence of the aid, thus infringing Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108(3) TFEU) and Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1)

Eighth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the recovery order.

Ninth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the addition of interest.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 215/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2013 — Holger Priestoph and Others v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-245/13)

2013/C 215/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Holger Priestoph, Matteo Antonio Priestoph, Pia Antonia Priestoph

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Question referred

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 [(service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action — in which a purchaser of bonds issued by the defendant that were in the safe-keeping of S-Broker AG, in the securities account of the applicants, and in respect of which the applicants had not accepted the defendant’s exchange offer made at the end of February 2012, demands compensation for damages in the amount of the difference in value relative to an exchange of the bonds that was nonetheless effected in March 2012 and which was economically disadvantageous for the applicants — is to be regarded as a ‘civil or commercial matter’ within the meaning of the Regulation?

(1) OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 215/11

Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 22 March 2013 in Case T-571/10 Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Impexmetal

(Case C-292/13 P)

2013/C 215/14

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. (represented by: P. Borowski, adwokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Impexmetal S.A.

Form of order sought

— set aside the judgment in its entirety and uphold the application of 16 December 2010 in its entirety by annulling the decision of 6 October 2010 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market;

— in the event that this head of claim is not upheld, set aside the judgment in its entirety and refer the present case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

— order the other parties to the proceedings to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the appellant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, and those incurred in the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the General Court breached Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by applying that provision to factual circumstances not covered by it.

In the view of the appellant, the erroneous application of that provision is attributable to the General Court’s incorrect assumption that the appellant’s mark is similar to the older Community figurative mark of the intervener and that there is for that reason a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. The General Court, it submits, failed to take account of the following facts:

— the similarity between the marks does not justify the assertion that this might be the source of a likelihood of confusion;

— the appellant’s mark is a part of its commercial name and this name has been used long before the application for registration;

— that mark is a historically well-founded designation of the appellant;
2.

If the answer to the first question is affirmative, does the case involve a sufficiently serious breach of EU law, this being a condition for Member State liability, particularly when account is taken of the following: — in its case-law, the CJEU has not taken a specific position on the question of whether sex-based actuarial factors may be taken into account in the determination of statutory social security benefits falling within the scope of application of Directive 79/7/EEC; — in its judgment issued in case C-236/09 Test-Achats the CJEU has stated that Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/113/EC (2) (Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services), which allows such factors to be taken into consideration, is invalid but has stipulated a transitional period prior to the provision becoming invalid; and — in Directives 2004/113/EC and 2006/54/EC (3) (Directive on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunity and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation) the EU’s legislature has allowed, on certain conditions, sex-based actuarial factors to be taken into account in the calculation of benefits referred to in these Directives, and on the basis of this the national legislature has assumed that these factors can also be considered in the area of statutory social security referred to in this case?
4.

May the public-policy clause contained in Article 34(1) of the Regulation be interpreted as meaning that recognition of a judgment adopting provisional protective measures is contrary to the public policy of a Member State if, first, the principal ground for the adoption of the provisional protective measures is the considerable size of the amount requested without a well-founded and substantiated calculation having been made and, second, if the recognition and enforcement of that judgment may cause the defendants damage for which the applicant, a company which is in liquidation, will not be able to compensate in the event that the claim for compensation is dismissed, which might affect the economic interests of the State in which recognition is sought, and thereby jeopardise the security of the State, in view of the fact that the Republic of Latvia holds 100 % of the shares in Lidosta Rīga and 52.6 % of the shares in AS Air Baltic Corporation?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/16

Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza, a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón, SA, Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-94/10: Rütgers Germany GmbH and others v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

(Case C-288/13 P)

2013/C 252/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza, a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón, SA, Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-94/10; and

— annul Decision ED/68/2009 of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) (the ‘Contested Decision’) identifying Anthracene oil as a substance to be included on the Candidate List in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (‘REACH’) (1), 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 partial annulment in respect 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 interpretation of the legal framework as applicable to the appellants’ situation. That resulted in the General Court making a number of errors in law; in particular:

— in finding that the case related to complex scientific and technical facts and that the identification of anthracene oil as having PBT and vPvB properties on the basis of its constituents present in a concentration of at least 0.1% was not vitiated by a manifest error;

— the constituents do not have to be individually identified as having PBT or vPvB properties in a separate ECHA decision based on a thorough assessment for that purpose;

— Article 59(3) and Annex XV of REACH were not breached because information on alternative substances was not included in the Annex XV dossier; and

— that there was no breach of the principle of equal treatment

For these reasons the appellants claim that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-94/10 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, 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 L 396, p. 1
(b)

Contrary to the case-law of the Court of Justice, it fails to make a distinction between equalisation interest and interest for delay, and sets both interest rates at two percentage points above the main refinancing interest rate of the European Central Bank.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/40

Appeal brought on 26 July 2013 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 29 May 2013 in Case T-384/10 Kingdom of Spain v European Commission

(Case C-429/13 P)

2013/C 260/71

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— in any event, uphold the appeal and set aside in part the judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2013 in Case T-384/10 Kingdom of Spain v European Commission;

— annul in part, as set out, Commission Decision C(2010) 4147 of 30 June 2010, reducing the assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund to the following (groups of) projects: ‘Water supply to settlements in the Guadiana basin: Andévalo area’ (2000.ES.16.C.PE.133), ‘Drainage and water treatment in the Guadalquivir basin: Guadaira, Aljarafe and the areas of natural protection of the Guadalquivir’ (2000.16.C.PE.066) and ‘Water supply to multi-municipal systems in the provinces of Granada and Málaga’ (2002.ES.16.C.PE.061); and

— in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant alleges that the General Court committed an error of law in considering that any network constitutes a ‘work’ within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts.

The appellant further submits that the judgment under appeal departs from the case-law (Case C-16/98 Commission v France [2000] ECR I-8315) in failing to take account of the need for geographical continuity of the works taken as a whole and of the interdependence between them, namely, the interconnectivity required for the provision of services.

(1) OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54
—

Declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the transposition of the provisions in Article 3(3) and (4), Article 4(2), Article 8, Article 9(1) to (7), Article 10(2) and (5), Article 13(1) and (5), Article 14(4) and (5)(b), Article 16(1), Article 25(5), Article 36(9)(3), Article 41(1)(d), (g) and (q), (3)(b) and (d), (6)(a) and (c), and (10) to (12), Article 42(1), Article 43(1), (4) and (8) and point 1 in Annex I to Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, (1) or in any event failing to notify such measures to the European Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 54(1) of the directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/20

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2013 — Elena Recinto-Pfingsten v Swiss International Air Lines AG

(Case C-259/13)

2013/C 260/34

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elena Recinto-Pfingsten

Defendant: Swiss International Air Lines AG

Question referred

Is the Agreement (1) on air transport between the Swiss Confederation and the European Community of 21 June 1999, as amended by Decision No 2/2010 (2) of the Community/Switzerland Air Transport Committee of 26 November 2010, to be interpreted as meaning that Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (3) 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, is applicable, in accordance with Article 3(1)(a), also to passengers who embark on a flight to a third country from airports in Switzerland?

(1) Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport — Final Act — Joint Declarations — Information relating to the entry into force of the seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation in the sectors free movement of persons, air and land transport, public procurement, scientific and technological cooperation, mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, and trade in agricultural products (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 73).

(2) Decision No 2/2010 of the Joint Community/Switzerland Air Transport Committee set up under the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport of 26 November 2010 replacing the Annex to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (OJ 2010 L 347, p. 54).

(3) 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.

Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004? (1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/11

Appeal brought on 15 July 2013 by Simone Gbagbo against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2013 in Case T-119/11 Gbagbo v Council

(Case C-397/13 P)

2013/C 274/19

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Simone Gbagbo (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Republic of Côte d’Ivoire

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— declare the appeal brought by Ms Simone Gbagbo admissible and well founded;

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP; (1) Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005; (2) Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire; (3) and Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, (4) in so far as they concern the appellant;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

First, the appellant criticises the General Court for rejecting her plea in law alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons. The appellant takes issue with the General Court for finding that the Council had provided sufficient information when the sole reason for the contested decision was, according to the appellant, her status as ‘President of the FPI group in the National Assembly’.

Secondly, the appellant argues that the General Court made a manifest error of assessment in relation to the facts. She maintains that the facts construed as obstruction of the peace and reconciliation processes and as public incitement to hatred and violence are substantively inaccurate; moreover, there is not even any evidence to support them.

(1) OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36.

(2) OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1.

(3) OJ 2011 L. 93, p. 20.

(4) OJ 2011 L. 93, p. 10.