ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Is the first sentence of Article 14(1)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC (1) of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity to be interpreted as meaning that the exclusion of private pleasure-flying from the tax advantage signifies that the exemption for energy products supplied for use as fuel for the purpose of air navigation is to be applied only to airlines, or is the exemption to be applied to all fuel used for air navigation, provided that the aircraft is used for the purpose of earning income?
3.

(a) Is Article 5(3)(e) of Directive 2001/29, in the light of Article 5(5) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that in the interests of criminal justice in the context of public security its application requires a specific, current and express appeal for publication of the image on the part of the security authorities, i.e. that publication of the image must be officially ordered for search purposes, or otherwise an offence is committed? (b) If the answer to question 3a should be in the negative: are the media permitted to rely on Article 5(3)(e) of the directive even if, without such a search request being made by the authorities, they should decide, of their own volition, whether images should be published ‘in the interests of public security’? (c) If the answer to question 3b should be in the affirmative: is it then sufficient for the media to assert after the event that publication of an image served to trace a person or is it always necessary for there to be a specific appeal to readers to assist in a search in the investigation of an offence, which must be directly linked to the publication of the photograph?
2.

Does Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Bulgaria, of the other part, preclude the application of Paragraph 30(1) and (5) of the Austrian Rechtsanwaltsordnung (Lawyers’ Code), pursuant to which, inter alia, proof of Austrian citizenship or a nationality regarded as equivalent is a registration requirement, in respect of an application by a Bulgarian national employed by an Austrian lawyer, made on 2 January 2004, for registration in the list of Austrian trainee lawyers and for the issue of a ‘Legitimationsurkunde’ (certificate evidencing authority) in accordance with Paragraph 15(3) of the Austrian Rechtsanwaltsordnung and the rejection of the application solely on the grounds of nationality, despite the other requirements being fulfilled and the applicant having a permanent residence and work permit for Austria?
4.

If the reply to Question 3 is in the negative, can the penalty applied consist in recovery of part of the restructuring aid granted, together with recovery of the transitional quota? How must the amount of aid to be recovered under Article 26(1) of Commission Regulation No 968/2006 and the penalty provided for under Article 27 thereof be calculated where an undertaking producing sugar has received restructuring aid (for the 2006/2007 marketing year) and has used its transitional quota (for which no restructuring aid was granted)? Must all or some of the following factors be taken into account in the calculation of that amount and of that penalty: (a) the costs born by the undertaking producing sugar in question for the dismantling of its production facilities? (b) the losses incurred by the undertaking producing sugar in question as a result of giving up its normal basic quota? (c) the fact that the transitional quota is a one-off, transitional measure which permits production for the 2006/2007 marketing year only and does not apply to other marketing years (save in the case of the transitional sugar quota)? (d) is a calculation of the amount to be recovered which does not take into account the factors referred to in points (a) to (c) inconsistent with the principle of proportionality?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Isernia (Italy) lodged on 2 April 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Aldo Patriciello

(Case C-163/10)

(2010/C 161/37)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Isernia

Party to the main proceedings

Aldo Patriciello

Question referred

Do the facts construed in abstracto as a criminal offence committed by Aldo Patriciello — a Member of the European Parliament, described in the indictment and in favour of whom the European Parliament adopted a decision on 5 May 2009 to support a defence of immunity — which is categorised as slander under Article 368 of the Penal Code correspond to the expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties for the purposes of Article 9 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities?
1.

Should Article 94 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (1) of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 873/2004 (2) of 29 April 2004, read in conjunction with Articles 11(1), 13(1) to 13(3), 16, 27 and 104 of the aforementioned Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, be interpreted in such a way that the holder or the person enjoying the right of exploitation may bring an action for infringement against anyone who effects acts in respect of material which was sold or disposed of to him by a licensee of the right of exploitation if the limitations in the licensing contract between the licensee and the holder of the Community plant variety right that were stipulated to apply in the event of the sale of that material were not respected?
1.

Where a court in a Member State opens the main insolvency proceedings in respect of a debtor, on the view that the centre of the debtor’s main interests is situated in the territory of that Member State, does Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (1) preclude the application, by that court, of a rule of national law conferring upon it jurisdiction to join to those proceedings a company whose seat is in another Member State solely on the basis of a finding that the property of the debtor and the property of that company have been intermixed?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/20

Action brought on 21 April 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

(Case C-195/10)

2010/C 179/33

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by A. Marghelis and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Form of order sought

— declare that the Republic of Estonia has failed to transpose correctly Articles 8(a)(iv) and 10 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste; (1)

— order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Paragraph 91(5) of the Jäätmeseadus (Law on waste) does not provide for the security to be kept as long as required by maintenance and after-care operation of the landfill site in accordance with Article 13(d), nor is any requirement laid down to cover the costs of after-care of the site for a period of at least 30 years.

(1) OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.
1.

Is Article 82 EC to be interpreted as meaning that selective price reductions on the part of a dominant postal undertaking that has a universal service obligation to a level lower than the postal undertaking’s average overall costs, but higher than the provider’s average incremental costs, can constitute exclusionary abuse, if it is established that the prices are not set at that level for the purpose of eliminating a competitor?
Inappropriate Application of Commission's Unique Competition Law Exemption- Powers To Admissibility of Health Standards Complaint The Court further erred by considering the Commission's military exemption of the radiological accident at Thule from the Directive's health protections, in the light of the Commission's wide and unique discretion to formulate EU competition policy by discretionary exemptions of unlawful trade agreements. This ignored admissibility decisions of this Court in other EU areas where the Commission does not possess such a unique discretion and where allegations of the Commission's failure to act did not deem a claim manifestly inadmissible.

The Court overlooked the fact that Commission does not have a unique and unfettered discretion to enforce the Uniform Health Safety Standards since the EAEC Treaty narrowly defines its exemption- power and specifically provides mechanisms for individuals to complain of its administrative failures to act in areas where protections have been conferred on them. This includes situations where the refusal to act has been addressed to another party.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/3

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 16 April 2010 — Génesis Seguros Generales Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros (GENESIS) v Boys Toys S.A., Administración del Estado

(Case C-190/10)

2010/C 195/04

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Génesis Seguros Generales Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros (GENESIS)

Defendant: Boys Toys S.A. y Administración del Estado

Question referred

May Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark be interpreted in such a way as to enable account to be taken not only of the day but also of the hour and minute of filing of an application for registration of a Community trade mark with OHIM (provided that such information has been recorded) for the purposes of establishing temporal priority over a national trade mark application filed on the same day, where the national legislation governing the registration of national trade marks considers the time of filing to be relevant?

(1) OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/24

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2010 — ENEL Produzione SpA v Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

(Case C-242/10)

()

2010/C 209/33

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia, Sezione Terza

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Enel Produzione SpA

Defendant: Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

Question referred

Do Articles 23, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty and Article 11(2) and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 54/03/EC preclude national legislation which, without the European Commission having been notified, requires on a permanent basis certain electricity producers which are, in certain circumstances, essential for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the demand for dispatching services, to submit bids on the energy exchange markets, in accordance with programmes determined by the network operator in accordance with external rules, and which prevents producers from freely determining the remuneration for such bids by linking the remuneration to criteria that have not been pre-determined according to ‘transparent, non-discriminatory and market-based procedures’?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht, Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 19 April 2010 — KMB Europe BV v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

(Case C-193/10)

()

2010/C 209/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KMB Europe BV

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Question referred

Is heading 8521 of the Combined Nomenclature in the version of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and the statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), [as amended] by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 (2), to be interpreted as meaning that apparatus such as the MP3 media player described below is not to be classified under that heading because account must be taken of its principal function as sound reproducing apparatus or because its capability of reproducing individual pictures and films is limited by a small display with small resolution and low frame frequency?

(1) OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2006 L 301, p. 1).
—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2006/118/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/21

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 20 May 2010 — Haltergemeinschaft LBL GbR v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

(Case C-250/10)

()

2010/C 234/34

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Haltergemeinschaft LBL GbR

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

Question referred

Subject to an affirmative answer to the first question referred by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) on 1 December 2009 in the proceedings for a preliminary ruling already pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union as Case C-79/10, is the person leasing or chartering out his aircraft, including the jet fuel to be provided by him, entitled to the exemption from taxation provided for in Article 14(1)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity? (1)

(1) OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/18

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 17 May 2010 — Harald Jung and Gerald Hellweger v Magistrat der Stadt Salzburg, other party to the proceedings: Finanzamt Salzburg-Stadt

(Case C-241/10)

()

2010/C 221/30

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Harald Jung and Gerald Hellweger

Defendant: Magistrat der Stadt Salzburg

Other party to the proceedings: Finanzamt Salzburg-Stadt

Question referred

Is Annex X of the list referred to in Article 24 of the Act of Accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union (1. Freedom of movement for persons) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the leasing of workers from Hungary to Austria cannot be regarded as a posting of those workers and that national restrictions concerning the employment of Hungarian workers in Austria apply equally, in Austria, in respect of Hungarian workers (regularly employed in Hungary) leased by Hungarian undertakings to Austria?

(1) OJ 2003 L 236, p. 846.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/32

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands), lodged on 8 July 2010 — A. Salemink v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (UWV)

(Case C-347/10)

()

2010/C 246/53

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A. Salemink

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (UWV)

Question referred

Do the rules forming part of European Community law which are designed to bring about free movement for workers, in particular the rules set out in Titles I and II of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) as well as in Articles 39 and 299 of the EC Treaty (now respectively Articles 45 TFEU and 52 TEU, in conjunction with Article 355 TFEU) preclude an employee working outside Netherlands territory on a fixed installation on the Netherlands section of the continental shelf for an employer established in the Netherlands from being in a position in which he is not insured under national statutory employee insurance solely on the ground that he is not resident in the Netherlands but in another Member State (in this case, Spain), even if he has Netherlands nationality and can also avail of the option to take out voluntary insurance under essentially the same conditions as those which apply to compulsory insurance?

(1) Regulation of the Council 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, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/26

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 17 June 2010 — Vítor Hugo Marques Almeida v Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade-Mundial SA, Jorge Manuel da Cunha Carvalheira, Paulo Manuel Carvalheira, Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

(Case C-300/10)

()

2010/C 234/42

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vítor Hugo Marques Almeida

Defendants: Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade-Mundial SA, Jorge Manuel da Cunha Carvalheira, Paulo Manuel Carvalheira, Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

Questions referred

(a) Must Articles 3(1) of the First Directive (72/166/EEC), (1) 2(1) of the Second Directive (84/5/EEC) (2) and 1 and 1a of the Third Directive (90/232/EEC) (3) be interpreted to the effect that they preclude national civil law, in particular through the rules laid down in Articles 503(1), 504, 505 and 570 of the Civil Code, from providing that if, when two vehicles collide, the event is not attributable to the fault of either driver, and it gives rise to personal injury to the passenger in one of the vehicles (the injured person seeking compensation), the compensation to which the latter is entitled is to be refused or limited, on the ground that that passenger has contributed to the occurrence of the injury, for he was travelling in the vehicle, in the front passenger seat, without fastening his seat-belt as required by national legislation?

(b) having regard to the fact that it has been established that when the two vehicles involved collided, because of that collision and because he had not fastened his seat-belt, that passenger struck his head with force against the windscreen, breaking it, which resulted in deep cuts to his head and face?

(c) and having regard to the fact that, one of the vehicles involved not being covered by valid and effective insurance with any insurer at the date of the accident, the defendants and respondents in the proceedings include, in addition to the insurer of the other vehicle involved, the owner of the uninsured vehicle, its driver and the Fundo de Garantia Automóvel, who and which may, in so far as strict liability is concerned, be jointly and severally liable to pay such compensation?

(1) Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360).

(2) Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

(3) Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).
—

declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/117/Euratom of 20 November 2006 on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel, (1) or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/10

Appeal brought on 22 July 2010 by Ravensburger AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2010 in Case T-108/09: Ravensburger AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Educa Borras, S.A.

(Case C-369/10 P)

()

2010/C 260/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ravensburger AG (represented by: H. Harte-Bavendamm, M. Goldmann, Rechtsanwälte)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— allow the Appeal against the judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 (Case T-108/09);

— set aside the judgment of the General Court;

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 8 January 2009 (Case R 305/2008-2) and, as appropriate, the decision of the Cancellation Division of 3 September 2006 (Case 1107C);

— (as appropriate) remit the case to the OHIM for fresh consideration;

— order the Intervener and the OHIM to pay the Appellant's costs of this Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

1. Distortion of evidence by misrepresenting the Appellant's factual statements regarding the list of goods of the Community trade mark in question by asserting that it was ‘not disputed in the present case that the goods for which the mark at issue was registered include, in particular, memory games’.

2. Distortion of evidence by applying Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) and application of a flawed and overly restrictive test in assessing the descriptive character of a word mark, namely Community trade mark registration No 1 203 629‘MEMORY’.

3. Distortion of evidence by applying Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation and application of a flawed and overly restrictive test in assessing the lack of distinctiveness of a word mark, namely Community Trade Mark registration No 1 203 629‘MEMORY’.

4. Distortion of evidence by almost exclusively relying on assumed linguistic usage in distant non-European countries.

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

OJ L 78, p. 1
1.

Does the fact that the Portuguese judicial authorities have declared that they lack jurisdiction by reason of nationality to hear an action concerning a commercial claim constitute an obstacle to the connection between causes of action referred to in Articles 6(1) and [28] of Regulation No 44/2001, (1) where the Portuguese court has another action pending before it, a Paulian action brought against both the debtor and the third-party transferee, in this case the transferee of a debt receivable, and the depositaries of the subject-matter of the claim assigned to the third-party transferee, the latter having their seats in Portugal, in order that they may all be bound by the res judicata decision to be given?
2.

If the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative: does subheading 0207 12 10 (1) also cover carcases inside which one of the giblets stated in that subheading has been inserted more than once?
—

declare that, failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (1) or, in any event, failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;