ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

declare that, by failing to adopt, by 26 June 2017, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2015/849/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 67 of that directive;
2.

Does the provision contained in Article 35(2) of the Montreal Convention, […] [according to which] … ‘[t]he method for calculating that period shall be determined by the law of the court seised of the case’, allow it to be considered that a national legal provision on when the limitation period begins to run can prevail over the general provision contained in Article 35(1) whereby the limitation period begins with the arrival at the destination?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu (Poland) lodged on 24 July 2018 — Profi Credit Polska S.A., whose seat is in Bielsko-Biała, v OH

(Case C-483/18)

(2018/C 427/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Profi Credit Polska S.A., whose seat is in Bielsko-Biała

Respondent: OH

Question referred

Should Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular Article 3(1) and (2), Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) thereof, and Directive 2008/48/EC of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, (2) in particular Article 22(3) thereof, be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of Article 10, in conjunction with Article 17, of the ustawa z dnia 28 kwietnia 1936 r. prawo wekslowe (Law of 28 April 1936 on Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes) according to which a court is not permitted to act of its own motion in a situation where it has a strong and justified belief, based on materials not originating from the parties to the case, that the contract giving rise to the basic legal relationship is at least partially invalid, and the applicant pursues his claim under a blank promissory note while the defendant raises no pleas and behaves passively?

(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(2) OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 7 September 2018 — Coty Germany GmbH v Amazon Services Europe S.a.r.l. and Others

(Case C-567/18)

(2018/C 427/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Coty Germany GmbH

Defendants: Amazon Services Europe S.a.r.l., Amazon FC Graben GmbH, Amazon Europe Core S.a.r.l., Amazon EU S.a.r.l.

Question referred

Does a person who, on behalf of a third party, stores goods which infringe trade mark rights, without having knowledge of that infringement, stock those goods for the purpose of offering them or putting them on the market, if it is not that person himself but rather the third party alone which intends to offer the goods or put them on the market? (1)

(1) Interpretation of Article 9(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) and interpretation of Article 9(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).
2.

In the second place, according to the Hungarian Government, the contested directive infringes Article 153(5) TFEU, which excludes the EU’s legislative power in relation to the regulation of pay in the context of employment relationships, as the EU legislature, in establishing that the remuneration of workers must be in accordance with the legislation in force in the Member State of posting, has adopted a rule which relates, in essence, to the remuneration of the employment relationship. The EU legislature selected the legal bases referred to in the contested directive because it saw that, in the absence of EU competence, that was the only way to regulate the issue of remuneration, which is one of the essential elements of that directive, and it thereby acted ultra vires (second plea in law).
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 July 2018 — Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena v BALEMA GmbH

(Case C-432/18)

(2018/C 427/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena

Respondent: BALEMA GmbH

Question referred

Does the protection of the entire name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ extend to the use of the individual non-geographical components of the term as a whole (‘Aceto’, ‘Balsamico’, ‘Aceto Balsamico’)? (1)

(1) Interpretation of Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 583/2009 of 3 July 2009 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (OJ 2009 L 175, p. 7).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Épinal (France) lodged on 1 October 2018 — Cofidis SA v YU, ZT

(Case C-616/18)

(2018/C 436/42)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance d’Épinal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cofidis SA

Defendants: YU, ZT

Question referred

Does the protection guaranteed to consumers by Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (1) preclude a national provision which, in an action brought by a seller or supplier against a consumer on the basis of a credit agreement which they have concluded, prohibits the national court, on expiry of a limitation period of five years from the conclusion of the agreement, from finding and penalising, of its own motion or following an objection raised by the consumer, a failure to comply with the provisions relating to the obligation laid down in Article 8 of the directive to verify the creditworthiness of the consumer, a failure to comply with those of Article 10 et seq. of the directive relating to the information which must be included in a clear and concise manner in credit agreements, and, more generally, a failure to comply with all of the consumer-protection provisions set out in that directive?

(1) OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.
1.

Under circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, in which a producer organisation within the meaning of Article 11(1) and Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (Regulation No 2200/96) (1) supplies goods to the producers that are its members and receives for this from the producers a payment which does not cover the purchase price, a) is an exchange with an extra cash charge deemed to exist because the producers, in return for the supply, have contractually undertaken vis-a-vis the producer organisation to supply fruit and vegetables to the producer organisation for the duration of the earmarking period, with the consequence that the taxable amount of the supply is the purchase price for the capital goods paid by the producer organisation to the upstream suppliers? b) is the entirety of the amount which the operational fund actually pays to the producer organisation for the supply a ‘subsidy directly linked to the price of such supplies’ within the meaning of Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (Directive 77/388/EEC), (2) with the consequence that the taxable amount also encompasses the financial assistance within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation No 2200/96 which has been granted to the operational fund on the basis of an operational programme?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Session, Edinburgh (United Kingdom) made on 3 October 2018 — Andy Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

(Case C-621/18)

(2018/C 445/12)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Session, Edinburgh

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Andy Wightman, Ross Greer, Alyn Smith, David Martin, Catherine Stihler, Jolyon Maugham, Joanna Cherry

Defendant: Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

Other parties to the procedure: Chris Leslie, Tom Brake

Question referred

Where, in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, does EU law permit that notice to be revoked unilaterally by the notifying Member State; and, if so, subject to what conditions and with what effect relative to the Member State remaining within the European Union?
1.

Should the term ‘biocidal products’ in Article 3 of Regulation 528/2012 (1) be interpreted as also referring to substances which consist of one or more types of bacteria, enzymes or other constituents, given that, due to the specific way in which they act, they have no direct effect on the harmful organism for which they are intended, but on the creation or maintenance of the potential habitat of that harmful organism, and what requirements must then, where appropriate, be imposed on such an effect?
1.

Are Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that airline passengers may be entitled to compensation under the regulation more than once on the basis of the same reservation if the flight on which the operating air carrier has rebooked the passengers is cancelled or delayed by more than three hours, with the result that the compensation under Article 7 of the regulation is not fixed but rather is contingent on the number of cancellations or on the scope of the cancellations and the associated delay?
Action brought on 12 October 2018 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-638/18)

(2018/C 445/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae and K. Petersen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Romania

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by systematically and constantly failing, since 2007, to comply with the daily limit values for concentrations of PM10 and by constantly and systematically failing, from 2007 to 2014 inclusive, with the exception of 2013, to comply with the annual limit values for concentrations of PM10 in Zone RO32101, Bucharest, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Annex XI thereto;

— declare that, with regard to Zone RO32101, Bucharest, Romania has, since 11 June 2010, failed to fulfil the obligations laid down in Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, read in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV thereto, in particular the obligation laid down in the second subparagraph of that provision to ensure that the period of exceeding the limit values for PM10 be as short as possible;

— order Romania to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Since 2007, the daily limit values for concentrations of PM10 have been systematically and constantly exceeded in Zone RO32101, Bucharest. Moreover, from 2007 to 2014 inclusive, with the exception of 2013, the annual limit values for concentrations of PM10 have been exceeded in that zone. Those exceedances are sufficient for a finding of infringement of Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, read in conjunction with Annex XI thereto.

Despite those exceedances, Romania has not established plans for that zone which comply with Article 23(1) of that directive, in particular the obligation to adopt appropriate measures so that the period of exceeding the limit values for PM10 may be as short as possible. That failure to fulfil obligations is a result of the prolonged period during which the exceedances were recorded, the lengthy timeframes laid down for putting an end to the exceedances, the lack of some of the elements set out in Section A of Annex XV to the directive, and the fact that the plans do not address all the main causes of the exceedances of the limit values and also do not lay down sufficient mandatory measures to ensure compliance with those limit values.

(1) OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1.
Appeal brought on 11 September 2018 by Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2018 in Case T-643/13, Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH v European Commission

(Case C-568/18 P)

(2019/C 16/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and D. Jacob, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 in Case T-643/13;

— annul the Commission’s decision of 15 September 2013 with reference GestDem 2013/1504;

— in the alternative, set aside the General Court’s judgment and refer the matter back to the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The applicant relies on the following grounds of appeal:

1. The General Court misconstrued the requirements set out in Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (1) for a refusal to grant free access to environmental information. It interpreted too broadly the ground for refusal set out in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (2) in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, in the light of the Aarhus Convention guidelines. The General Court erred in law in assuming that information on the CO2 efficiency of an industrial plant was commercially sensitive information.

2. The General Court infringed Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by failing to recognise the existence of environmental information on emissions.

3. Furthermore, the General Court also failed to take sufficient account of the overwhelming public interest in access to the environmental information at issue, as demonstrated by the appellant.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies, OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Chambre disciplinaire de première instance de l’ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes de Midi-Pyrénées (France) lodged on 24 April 2018 — Conseil départemental de l’ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes de la Haute-Garonne v RG, RG

(Case C-296/18)

(2019/C 4/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Chambre disciplinaire de première instance de l’ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes de Midi-Pyrénées

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Conseil départemental de l’ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes de la Haute-Garonne

Defendants: RG, RG

By order of 23 October 2018, the Court (Eighth Chamber) ruled:

Article 8 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a general and absolute prohibition of any advertising by members of the dental profession, in that that profession prohibits any recourse to online advertising methods that promotes specific dentists or their company.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 25 October 2018 — Orde van Vlaamse balies, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone v Ministerraad

(Case C-667/18)

(2019/C 25/27)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Orde van Vlaamse balies, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone

Defendant: Ministerraad

Question referred

Should the term ‘proceedings’ in Article 201(1)(a) of Directive 2009/138/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance be interpreted as including extrajudicial and judicial mediation proceedings, as provided for in Articles 1723/1 to 1737 of the Belgian Gerechtelijk Wetboek (Judicial Code)?

(1) OJ 2009 L 335, p. 1.
1.

Does the rule in Article 44(1)(b) of Law 4111/2013, as in force in the 2013 tax year (2012 financial year), under which owners or keepers of private cars (with a cylinder capacity of 1 929 cc or more) more than ten years old by reference to the year when they were first put into circulation in Greece and not to the year of any prior (first) putting into circulation in a Member State of the European Union are exempt from wealthy lifestyle tax, constitute a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty between the Member States of the European Union, within the meaning of Articles 28 to 30 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 22 June 2018 by Anthony Andrew King against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2018 in Case T-810/17: King v Commission

(Case C-412/18 P)

(2019/C 44/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Anthony Andrew King (represented by: P. McKenna, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 22 November 2018 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen (Belgium) lodged on 14 November 2018 — X v Belgische Staat

(Case C-706/18)

(2019/C 35/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Does Directive 2003/86/EC (1) — having regard to Article 3(5), as well as the objective thereof, in particular, the determination of the conditions for the exercise of the right to family reunification — preclude national legislation which requires that Article 5(4) of Directive 2003/86/EC be interpreted as meaning that the consequence of no decision having been taken by the expiry of the prescribed period is that national authorities are under an obligation to grant, of their own motion, a residence permit to the person concerned, without first establishing that that person in fact satisfies the conditions for residence in Belgium in conformity with EU law?

(1) Council Directive of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Aulnay-Sous-Bois (France) lodged on 3 December 2018 — LC, MD v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

(Case C-756/18)

(2019/C 54/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance d’Aulnay-Sous-Bois

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: LC, MD

Defendant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

Question referred

Is Article 3(2)(a) of 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 (1) (‘Regulation No 261/2004’), to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to rely on the provisions of the regulation, passengers must prove that they presented themselves for check-in?

If so, does Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation No 261/2004 preclude a rule of simple presumption that the requirement that a passenger present himself for check-in may be regarded as satisfied if the passenger has a reservation that has been accepted and registered by the operating air carrier within the meaning of Article 2(g)?

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
1.

In circumstances such as those here at issue, in which a natural person carries on an economic activity by practising several liberal professions and by letting out immovable property and thereby obtaining income of a continuous nature, do the provisions of Article 288 [first paragraph] point 4 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) require the identification of a particular professional activity as being the principal activity in order to verify whether the letting can be classified as an ancillary transaction thereto and, if so, on the basis of what criteria is that principal activity to be identified, or must those provisions be interpreted as meaning that all of the professional activities by which the economic activity of that natural person is carried on constitute the ‘principal activity’?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Trnave (Slovakia) lodged on 21 December 2018 — DHL Logistics (Slovakia), spol. s r.o. v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

(Case C-810/18)

(2019/C 82/17)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Trnave

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: DHL Logistics (Slovakia), spol. s r.o.

Respondent: Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

Question referred

Must the wording of Combined Nomenclature subheading 8525 80 91 set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff resulting from the Explanatory Notes published pursuant to that regulation in 2011 (2) (Commission Communication 2011/C 137/01) be interpreted as meaning that goods such as the digital video camera recorders at issue in the present case may also be classified under that subheading even though they are capable of capturing and recording video images only of a quality of less than 800 x 600 pixels, specifically, 720 x 576 pixels, given that their other function — the capturing and recording of still images — is limited to a still image quality of 1 600 x 1 200 pixels (1,92 megapixels)?

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

(2) OJ 2011 C 137, p. 1.