ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Cruz & Companhia Lda v IFAP — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP and Others

(Case C-128/13)

2013/C 171/21

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cruz & Companhia Lda

Defendants: IFAP — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP and Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo, CRL

Questions referred

The Court of Justice of the European Union is requested to give a preliminary ruling, in the light of the arguments of the parties, on the interpretation to be given to Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 (1) and Article 19(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985, (2) in relation to the ‘release’ of the security provided in the context of Article 22(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87.

(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products (OJ 1985 L 205, p. 5).
1.

Should the national authorities and courts, on the basis of the law of the European Union, refuse to apply the exemption pertaining to an intra-Community supply, the right to the deduction of VAT in respect of the purchase of goods which, after the purchase, were dispatched to another Member State, or the refund of VAT pursuant to the application of the second sentence of Article 28b(A)(2) of the Sixth Directive, (1) when, based on objective data, it has been established that there has been VAT evasion in respect of the goods concerned, and that the taxable person knew, or should have known, that it had participated therein, if national law does not make provision for the refusal of the exemption, the deduction or the refund under those circumstances?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Veneto — Sede di Mestre-Venezia (Italy) lodged on 27 March 2013 — SICES and Others v Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Venezia

(Case C-155/13)

2013/C 178/06

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Veneto — Sede di Mestre-Venezia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Società Italiana Commercio e Servizi srl, in liquidation (SICES) and Others

Defendant: Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Venezia

Question referred

On a proper construction of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 341/2007, (1) is there an unlawful transfer of licences for the importation at a preferential rate of duty of garlic of Chinese origin under the GATT quota, where the holder of those licences, following payment of the duty due, places the garlic in question on the market by means of a transfer to another trader who holds import licences and from whom it had — prior to the importation — acquired the garlic concerned?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 341/2007 of 29 March 2007 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas and introducing a system of import licences and certificates of origin for garlic and certain other agricultural products imported from third countries (OJ 2007 L 90, p. 12).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/22

Action brought on 18 April 2013 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union

(Case C-209/13)

2013/C 171/44

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson, S. Behzadi-Spencer, Agents, M. Hoskins QC, P. Baker QC, V. Wakefield, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Decision 2013/52/EU (1) authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax; and

— Require the Council to pay the United Kingdom’s costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2013/52/EU is contrary to Article 327 TFEU because it authorizes the adoption of a financial transaction tax (‘FTT’) with extraterritorial effects which will fail to respect the competences, rights and obligations of the Non-Participating States.

Second plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2013/52/EU is unlawful because it authorizes the adoption of an FTT with extraterritorial effects for which there is no justification in customary international law.

Third plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2013/52/EU is contrary to Article 332 TFEU because it authorizes enhanced cooperation for an FTT, the implementation of which will inevitably cause costs to be incurred by the Non-Participating States.

(1) OJ L 22, p. 11
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 189/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 12 April 2013 — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v L.F. Evans

(Case C-179/13)

2013/C 189/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Svb)

Defendant: L.F. Evans

Questions referred

1. Must Article 2 and/or Article 16 of Regulation 1408/71 (1) be construed as meaning that a person like Evans, who is a national of a Member State, who exercised her right of freedom of movement for workers, to whom the social security legislation of the Netherlands was applicable and who then went to work as a member of the service staff of the Consulate General of the United States of America in the Netherlands, from the commencement of such work no longer falls under the personal scope of Regulation 1408/71? If not:

2. (a) Must Article 3 of Regulation 1408/71 and/or Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 (2) be construed as meaning that the application of privileged status to Evans, which in this case consists inter alia of not being compulsorily insured for the purposes of social security and of not paying contributions in that regard, should be considered a sufficient justification for discriminating on grounds of nationality? (b) What significance must be attached in that regard to the fact that in December 1999 Evans, when asked, opted for the continuation of the privileged status?

(1) Council Regulation of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).

(2) Council Regulation of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475).
2.

If the reply is in the affirmative, would the practice operated by the Kingdom of Spain of paying directly to workers, in the event of the insolvency of their employer, ‘salarios de tramitación’ falling due beyond the 60th (now the 90th) working day after the date on which the action for unfair dismissal was brought, but of doing so only in the case of dismissals which have been declared by a court to be unfair and not in the case of dismissals which have been declared by a court to be null and void, be regarded as being contrary to Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) and, in any event, the general principle of equality and non-discrimination under European Union law?
2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative and bearing in mind that the third country national claiming a right to permanent residence pursuant to Article 16(2) based on five years continuous residence prior to April 2006 must also show that his or her residency was in compliance with, inter alia, the requirements of Article 10(3) of Regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68 (2), does the fact that during the currency of that putative five year period the EU national left the family home and the third country national then commenced to reside with another individual in a new family home which was not supplied or provided for by (erstwhile) the EU national spouse mean that the requirements of Article 10(3) of Regulation 1612/68 are not thereby satisfied?
(a)

Must the rules regarding the personal scope of application of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) and the rules which determine the territorial scope of the designation rules in Title II of that regulation be interpreted as meaning that those designation rules apply in a case such as the present, which concerns (a) a worker residing in the Netherlands who (b) is a national of the Netherlands, (c) in any event, was previously compulsorily insured in the Netherlands, (d) is employed as a seafarer by an employer established in Switzerland, (e) carries out his work on board a pipelayer which flies the Panamanian flag, and (f) carries out those activities first outside the territory of the Union (approximately 3 weeks above the continental shelf of the United States and approximately 2 weeks in international waters) and then above the continental shelf of the Netherlands (periods of one month and approximately one week) and of the United Kingdom (a period of slightly more than one week), while (g) the income earned thereby is subject to income tax levied by the Netherlands?
2.

Is Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (2) to be interpreted as including within the meaning of plan and programme a legislative provision which states that, in derogation from the rule that no landfills may be authorised except on the sites provided for in the waste management plan required by Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, landfills authorised before that waste management plan entered into force may, after such entry into force, be the subject-matter of new authorisations in respect of the plots covered by the authorisation pre-dating the entry into force of the waste management plan?
1.

Does the proprietor of a standard-essential patent who informs a standardisation body that he is willing to grant any third party a licence on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms abuse his dominant market position if he brings an action for an injunction against a patent infringer although the infringer has declared that he is willing to negotiate concerning such a licence? or is an abuse of the dominant market position to be presumed only where the infringer has submitted to the proprietor of a standard-essential patent an acceptable, unconditional offer to conclude a licensing agreement which the patentee cannot refuse without unfairly impeding the infringer or breaching the prohibition of discrimination, and the infringer fulfils his contractual obligations for acts of use already performed in anticipation of the licence to be granted?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 233/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 20 June 2013 — Marjan Noorzia

(Case C-338/13)

2013/C 233/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marjan Noorzia

Defendant: Bundesministerin für Inneres

Question referred

Is Article 4(5) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision under which spouses and registered partners must already have reached the age of 21 years at the time at which the application is submitted in order to be considered to be entitled to join other family members?

(1) OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/2

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 21 May 2013 — Elcogás, S.A. v Administración del Estado and Iberdrola, S.A.

(Case C-275/13)

(2013/C 226/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo, Spain

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elcogás, S.A.

Defendants: Administración del Estado, Iberdrola, S.A.

Question referred

Does the interpretation of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning that article (in particular, the judgments in Cases C-379/98 (1) and C-206/06 (2)), mean that the annual sums allocated to Elcogás in its capacity as the owner of a particular electricity generating facility, as provided for in the extraordinary viability plans approved for Elcogás by the Council of Ministers, are to be regarded as ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’, where those sums are collected under the general category of ‘permanent costs of the electricity system’, which are paid by all users and are transferred to undertakings in the electricity sector by means of subsequent settlements made by the Comisión Nacional de Energía (National Energy Commission) in accordance with predetermined statutory criteria, for which purpose that Commission has no margin of discretion?

(1) 2001, ECR I-2099.

(2) 2008, ECR I-5497.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/23

Appeal brought on 1 July 2013 by Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2013 in Case T-284/11: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-374/13 P)

2013/C 252/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, abogado)

Otherparties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the decision of the General Court of 25 April 2013 in case T-284/11, granting in consequence the registration of the Community Trademark Application no7 112 113‘METROINVEST’ to distinguish services in class 36.

— Order the other parties to bear the costs of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant raises a single plea alleging the:

— Infringement of the Art. 8.1 b) of Regulation no 207/2009 (1)

However this plea consists of four parts, which are the following:

— Error on the part of the General Court and on the part of OHIM in assessing the comparison of the signs.

— The General Court has not taken into account the applicable case law regarding the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

— Lack of coherence with other Office resolutions in which the same parts, and related trademarks are involved.

— Pacific coexistence between other trademarks, which include the word METRO in different classes, and also in class 36.

(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 252/19

Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2013 in Case T-587/08: Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-294/13 P)

2013/C 252/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, M. Kellerbauer, P.J.O. Van Nuffel, agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside point 1 of the operative part judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2013 in Case T-587/08, Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. v Commission;

— Give final judgment by setting the amount of the fine for Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. at EUR 9 800 000;

— Order Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. to pay the costs of the appeal and such proportion of the costs of the proceedings before the General Court as the Court of Justice considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that the General Court infringed Article 23 of 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 (1) read together with the Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (2) and the principle of effective enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, by considering that information supplied to the Commission in response to a request for information must be taken into account for a reduction of the fine as voluntary cooperation having facilitated the Commission’s investigation.

In the alternative, the Commission submits that the General Court infringed Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 and the duty to state reasons by reducing the fine imposed on Del Monte for Weichert’s cooperation during the administrative procedure although Del Monte and Weichert no longer formed part of the same undertaking at the point in time of Weichert’s alleged cooperative conduct.

(1) OJ L 1, p. 1.

(2) OJ C 45, p. 3.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/26

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Italia) lodged on 24 June 2013 — Cristiano Blanco v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-344/13)

2013/C 260/46

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cristiano Blanco

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale I di Roma — Ufficio Controlli

Question referred

Is it incompatible with Article 49 of the EC Treaty for persons resident in Italy to be required to declare for tax purposes, and be liable for tax on, winnings obtained from casinos in Member States of the European Union, as provided for by Article 67(1)(d) of Presidential Decree No 917 of 22.12.1986 (‘the TUIR’), or must this be regarded as justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, pursuant to Article 46 of the EC Treaty?
Can the chemical substance alpha-phenylacetoacetonitrile (CAS No 4468-48-8; further referred to as ‘APAAN’) be equated with the scheduled substance 1-phenyl-2-propanone (CAS No 103-79-7; further referred to as ‘BMK’)? In particular, the Rechtbank seeks clarification as to whether the Dutch term ‘bevatten’, the English term ‘containing’ and the French term ‘contenant’ should be interpreted as meaning that the substance BMK must, as such, already be present in the substance APAAN.

If Question 1(a) is answered in the negative, the Rechtbank wishes to submit the following supplementary questions to the Court of Justice under 1:
—

Declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the transposition of the provisions in Article 2(1), Article 3(5)(b), (7), (8) and (9)(c), Article 5, Article 7(4), Article 9(1) to (7), Article 10(2) and (5), Article 11(8), Article 13(4) and (5)(b), Article 16(1) and (2), Article 25(1), Article 26(2)(c), Article 31(3), Article 34(2), Article 37(1)(k), (p) and (q), (3)(b) and (d) and (10) to (12), Article 38(1), Article 39(1), (4) and (8) and point I of Annex I to Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, (1) or in any event failing to notify such measures to the European Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of the directive;
—

order that the Commission be paid a proposed penalty payment in the sum of EUR 71 193,60 for each day of delay in complying with the judgment delivered in Case C-502/03, from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the day on which the judgment delivered in Case C-502/03 has been complied with;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/2

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 28 May 2013 — RWE AG v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-296/13)

2013/C 274/02

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RWE AG

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

By decision of the Court of 25 July 2013 the case was removed from the register.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 298/3

Appeal brought on 19 July 2013 by Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 20 February 2013 in Case T-378/11 Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-412/13 P)

2013/C 298/04

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: R. Kunze and G Würtenberger, Rechtsanwälte)

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

Forms of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 20 February, dismissing an action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 May 2011 (Case R-1598/2010-4) relating to a claim of seniority of earlier marks;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is brought against the judgment of the General Court dismissing the Appellant’s claim for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 May 2011 relating to a claim of seniority of earlier marks in an application for registration of the figurative sign MEDINET as a Community trade mark.

The General Court infringed Article 34 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark by holding that that provision was to be interpreted narrowly and did not allow the seniority of part of an earlier national mark to be claimed. It further infringed its duty to state reasons under Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, in that it came to its decision on the basis of incomplete factual and legal considerations. Finally, the decision of the General Court without an oral procedure constituted a breach of Article 77 of Regulation No 207/2009.
2.

As regards the interpretation of Environmental Information Directive 2003/4/EC: In the event that the Court of Justice of the European Union affirms the validity of Directive 2003/4/EC in its entirety or the validity of parts of Directive 2003/4/EC, the Court of Justice is requested, pursuant to subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the first sentence of Article 267 TFEU, to give a ruling on the extent to which, and the assumptions on the basis of which, the provisions of the Environmental Information Directive are compatible with the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the requirements of Article 6 TEU.