ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/8

Appeal brought on 27 May 2015 by Maxcom Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case T-413/13: City Cycle Industries v Council of the European Union

(Case C-248/15 P)

(2015/C 262/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Maxcom Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: City Cycle Industries, Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

— Declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

— Set aside the General Court’s findings with regard to the second part of the first plea in law:

— Dismiss the first plea in law of the Applicant before the General Court in its entirety; and

— Order the Applicant before the General Court to pay the Appellant’s costs for the Appeal and the Intervention before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Appellant put forward the following arguments:

— The General Court manifestly erred by holding that under Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation (1) the Council could not conclude that the Applicant before the General Court engaged in transhipment from the facts that (i) the Applicant before the General Court was not a genuine Sri Lankan producer and (ii) did not undertake assembly operations that went beyond the thresholds set out in Article 13(2) of the Basic Regulation.

— In the alternative: The annulment of Regulation 501/2013 (2) as far as it concerns the Applicant before the General Court is not justified even if the Council’s findings on transhipment were incorrect as the Court confirmed that the Applicant before the General Court engaged in assembly operations that did not go beyond the threshold set out in Article 13(2) of the Basic Regulation and also confirmed the existence of all other criteria required for not granting the Applicant before the General Court an exemption from the circumvention measures.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community

OJ L 343, p. 51.

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not

OJ L 153, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 254/7

Appeal brought on 18 May 2015 by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-378/13, APAL and Star Fruit v OHIM

(Case C-226/15 P)

(2015/C 254/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 March 2015 in Case T-378/13, EU:T:2015:186, insofar as it dismisses the action brought by the appellants seeking, principally, alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 May 2013 in Case R 1215/2011-4;

— Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 May 2013 in Case R 1215/2011-4, so that the appeal brought by the appellants before that Board of Appeal is held to be well founded, with the consequence that their opposition to the registration of the Community trade mark application ENGLISH PINK No 8610768 must be upheld;

— Order OHIM to pay all the costs of the appellants in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on the following grounds.

First, the appellants submit that both the General Court and the Board of Appeal breached the general principle of res judicata concerning a decision on a matter between the same parties by a Community trade mark court applying Regulation (EC) 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark (CTMR) (1), as well as the general principles of legal certainty, sound administration and the protection of legitimate expectations.

Second, the appellants complain that the General Court infringed Article 65(3) of that Regulation in not altering the decision of OHIM.

Last, since, in the appellants’ view, the state of the proceedings permits the Court of Justice to give final judgment in the matter, they request that it apply the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/23

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 15 June 2015 — Patrice d’Oultremont, Henri Tumelaire, François Boitte, Éoliennes à tout prix? ASBL v Walloon Region

(Case C-290/15)

(2015/C 279/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Patrice d’Oultremont, Henri Tumelaire, François Boitte, Éoliennes à tout prix? ASBL

Defendant: Walloon Region

Question referred

Are Articles 2(a) and 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC (1) on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment to be interpreted to the effect that a regulatory order containing various provisions on the installation of wind turbines, including measures on safety, inspection, site restoration and financial collateral and permitted noise levels set having regard to town and country planning zones, such provisions setting a framework for the grant of administrative consent allowing a developer to install and operate installations which are automatically subject under national law to an assessment of their effects on the environment, must be considered to be a ‘plan or programme’ within the meaning of those articles?

(1) Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30).
Case C-216/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 12 May 2015 — Betriebsrat der Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH v Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 12 May 2015 — Betriebsrat der Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH v Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH

(Case C-216/15)

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Betriebsrat der Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH

Defendant: Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH

Question referred

Does Article 1(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work ( 1 ) apply to the assignment of a member of an association to another undertaking for the performance of work under that undertaking’s functional and organisational instructions if, upon joining the association, the member undertook to make his full working capacity available also to third parties, for which he receives a monthly remuneration from the association, the calculation of which is determined by the usual criteria for the particular activity, and the association receives, in return for the assignment, compensation for the personnel costs of the association member and a flat-rate administrative charge?

( 1 ) OJ 2008 L 327, p. 9.
5.

If the national rules in question (see Questions 1 to 4) are applied to an additional mandatory service that has to be provided not only in Denmark but in both Denmark and Greenland, which by virtue of Annex II to the TFEU is an overseas country or territory, do the answers to Questions 1 to 4 then also apply to that part of the requirement that relates to Greenland, where the service is entrusted by the Danish authorities to an undertaking established in Denmark and that undertaking has no other activities in Greenland?
a)

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: must every Member State in which the European Union citizen earns part of his income then take into account the full amount of the abovementioned negative income? Or does that obligation apply to only one of the States concerned in which work is carried out, and if so, to which? Or must each of the States in which work is carried out (not being the State of residence) allow part of that negative income to be deducted? In the latter case, how is that deductible part to be determined?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/35

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Marc Soulier Sara Doke v Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication Premier ministre

(Case C-301/15)

(2015/C 294/44)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Marc Soulier, Sara Doke

Defendants: Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication, Premier ministre

Question referred

Do the provisions, referred to above, of Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 (1), preclude legislation, such as that analysed in paragraph 1 of this decision, that gives approved collecting societies the right to authorise the reproduction and the representation in digital form of ‘out-of-print books’, while allowing the authors of those books, or their successors in title, to oppose or put an end to that practice, on the conditions that it lays down?

(1) Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).
3)

Is the criterion of the risk of severe disruptions to the national economy, to be met for limiting the application and effects of an unfair term, applicable to an individual action brought by a consumer or, on the contrary, in that individual action, does the criterion of risk of serious disruption refer to that caused to the financial position of the consumer as a result of the limitation of the effects of the term declared void to the period specified?
1.

Must Articles 43 and 44 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1) of 29 September 2003 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes from treatment as eligible hectares all areas of permanent pasture declared by a farmer in excess of those which were taken into account at the relevant time for the purpose of determining the normal entitlements due to that farmer, making the inclusion of those areas, and therefore the replacement of arable land with pasture, conditional on the pasture being genuinely given over to the rearing of livestock in the specific financial year in respect of which the farmer seeks to activate the payment entitlements? And, should that question be answered in the negative,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/43

Appeal brought on 21 July 2015 by John Dalli against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 12 May 2015 in Case T-562/12: John Dalli v European Commission

(Case C-394/15 P)

(2015/C 311/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: John Dalli (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

— declare his appeal admissible;

— annul the contested judgment;

— annul the contested decision;

— order compensation for damage of 1 symbolic euro for non-material damage and, on a provisional basis, of EUR 1 9 13 396 for material damage;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the Appellant raises:

— a first plea in law, alleging that the General Court ruled ultra petita by changing the subject-matter of the dispute;

— a second plea in law, alleging a failure to provide reasons;

— a third plea in law, alleging a breach of procedure which adversely affects the interests of the Appellant, including his rights of defence;

— a fourth plea in law, raising several distortions of facts and evidence; and
3.

In the event of an affirmative answer to Question 2, in actions for annulment of marriage brought by a person other than one of the spouses, may the jurisdiction of the court be based on the grounds mentioned in the fifth and sixth indents of Article 3(1)(a) of the regulation?
(1)

Do the provisions of Directive 2006/2012/EC of 28 November 2006 (1), as interpreted by the Community case-law recalled in the grounds of this order, preclude Member State rules — such as those set out above and in force in Italy (Article 19 of Presidential Decree 633/1972) — which exclude the possibility, including for the purposes of criminal law, of exercising the right to deduct where there has been a failure to file VAT returns, in particular, the return for the second year after the year in which the right to deduct arose?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/42

Action brought on 17 July 2015 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-389/15)

(2015/C 311/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, J. Guillem Carrau, B. Hartmann, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Council of 7 May 2015 authorising the opening of negotiations on a revised Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications as regards matters falling within the competence of the European Union;

— maintain the effects of the contested decision, where appropriate, until the entry into force, within a reasonable period from the delivery of the present judgment, of a new decision that is to be adopted by the Council of the European Union pursuant to Article 218(3), (4) and (8) TFEU;

— order the Council of the European Union to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea: The contested Decision acknowledges the existence of competence of the Member States, in breach of Article 3 TFEU, since the negotiation concerns an agreement which falls within the exclusive competence of the Union

Second plea: Infringement of Articles 207(3) and 218(3), (4) and (8) TFEU because the Council has appointed Member States as ‘negotiators’, in a matter of EU competence, and has not adopted the contested Decision in accordance with the applicable majority
(3)

Must Directive 2006/123/EC…, against the background of recital 9 in the preamble thereto, be interpreted as meaning that that directive does not apply to national rules which require the intention to carry out excavation work in connection with the installation, maintenance and removal of cables for a public electronic telecommunications network to be notified to the municipal council, and on the basis of which the latter is not competent to prohibit that work but is, however, competent to impose conditions in respect of the location, timing and manner of performance of the work and of the promotion of shared use of facilities and the coordination of the work with the managers of other construction works on the land?
If the answer to question 1(a) or 1(b) is in the negative:

Are the Commission’s Explanatory Notes to subheadings 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 of the Combined Nomenclature (3) to be interpreted as meaning that a sequence of video recorded in separate files each having a duration of less than 30 minutes is a recording of ‘at least 30 minutes in a single sequence of video’ if, when the recording is played, the viewer cannot perceive the switch between different files?
3.

If the above question is answered in the negative, must Article 3(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/42/EC, read in conjunction with recital 10 of that Directive, which states that ‘all plans and programmes which have been determined to require assessment pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna are likely to have significant effects on the environment, and should as a rule be made subject to systematic environmental assessment’, be interpreted as precluding legislation, such as the national legislation in question, which removes the automatic and compulsory requirement for all new and expansion-related development projects in urban areas covering up to forty hectares or urban-area regeneration or development projects in existing urban areas covering up to ten hectares to undergo the Strategic Environmental Assessment procedure, even where, in view of the potential effects on the sites, they had formerly been deemed to require an implications assessment pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 3 September 2015 — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

(Case C-465/15)

(2015/C 398/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Question referred

Is the third indent of Article 2(4)(b) of Council Directive (EC) No 2003/96 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1) to be interpreted with respect to the blast furnace process for the production of pig iron as meaning that electricity for the propulsion of the turbo blower is to be regarded as electricity which is used principally for the purposes of chemical reduction?

(1) Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Wiener Neustadt (Austria) lodged on 2 September 2015 — Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG v Balmatic Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H and Others

(Case C-464/15)

(2015/C 398/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Wiener Neustadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG

Defendants: Balmatic Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H, Robert Schnitzer, Suayip Polat KG, Ülkü Polat, Attila Juhas, Milazim Rexha

Question referred

Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in an assessment of the proportionality of a rule of national law which provides for a monopoly in the market for games of chance, the validity of that rule under EU law depends not only on the objective which it pursues but also on its effects, as definitively and empirically determined?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 September 2015 — Aeroporto Valerio Catullo di Verona Villafranca SpA v Società per l’Aeroporto Civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA)

(Case C-485/15)

(2015/C 414/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Aeroporto Valerio Catullo di Verona Villafranca SpA

Respondent: Società per l’Aeroporto Civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA)

Question referred

Do the principles of the Treaty on European Union of non-discrimination, equal treatment, transparency, advertising and competition preclude provisions of national legislation such as the combined provisions of Article 10 of Law No 537/93, Articles 6, 7, 8 and 17 of Ministerial Decree No 521/1997, Article 17 of Decree Law No 67/97, Article 3(2) of Legislative Decree No 96/2005 and Article 11 of Decree Law No 216/2011 in conjunction with Article 6 of Decree Law No 78/2010, in so far as those national provisions may allow the grant of a forty-year concession for full airport operation to escape award by means of a public tendering procedure?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 14 October 2015 — Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg v Jost Pinckernelle

(Case C-535/15)

(2016/C 007/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

Defendant: Jost Pinckernelle

Intervening party: The representative of the national interest in the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Question referred

Is Article 5 of the REACH Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, subject to Articles 6, 7, 21 and 23 of the REACH Regulation, substances may not be exported out of the European Union unless they have been registered in accordance with the relevant provisions of Title II of the REACH Regulation where this is required?

(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 2006 L 396, p. 1), Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/830 of 28 May 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2015 L 132, p. 8).
2)

Is it possible to impose on a person with a lease of premises in a market, who provides stalls and pitches on which stalls may be placed to individual market-traders for their use, measures, as provided for in Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, under the same conditions as those formulated by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 12 July 2011 in Case C-324/09 L’Oréal and Others v eBay and Others with regard to the imposition of measures on the operators of an online marketplace?
—

declare that, by not adopting and bringing into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment, (1) or in any event by not informing the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to meet its obligations under Article 24(1) of that directive;
a)

Even though the mechanism remunerates capacities only on the basis of their availability, not of their actual production, and having regard to the taking into account of the effects of interconnections in the determination of suppliers’ obligations, which relaxes the causal link between the exclusion of foreign capacities from the mechanism, as laid down by the decree, and the restrictive effect on cross-border electricity trading which could arise therefrom in terms of investors’ resource allocation choices and suppliers’ procurement choices, must Article 34 TFEU be interpreted as precluding such an exclusion measure?
2)

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative: may a provider who makes telephone numbers available, and who is obliged under national legislation to request a subscriber’s consent prior to inclusion in standard telephone directories and standard directory enquiry services, differentiate in the request for consent on the basis of the non-discrimination principle according to the Member State in which the company requesting the information as referred to in Article 25(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC provides the telephone directory and directory enquiry service?