ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 November 2015 — Stichting Brein, Other parties: Ziggo BV and XS4ALL Internet BV

(Case C-610/15)

(2016/C 048/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stichting Brein

Other parties: Ziggo BV, XS4ALL Internet BV

Questions referred

1. Is there a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive (1) by the operator of a website, if no protected works are available on that website, but a system exist … by means of which metadata on protected works which is present on the users’ computers is indexed and categorised for users, so that the users can trace and upload and download the protected works on the basis thereof?

2. If the answer to Question (1) is negative: Do Article 8(3) of the Copyright Directive and Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive (2) offer any scope for obtaining an injunction against an intermediary as referred to in those provisions, if that intermediary facilitates the infringing acts of third parties in the way referred to in Question 1?

(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).

(2) Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).
1.

Under Articles 314(a) and 226(11) of Directive 2006/112 (1) and under Articles 314(d) and 226(14) of that directive, are national rules and/or national practice founded on those rules allowed that prevent a taxable person from applying the VAT margin scheme because it becomes apparent upon a tax inspection carried out by the tax authority that incorrect information/data on the application of the VAT margin scheme and/or on exemption from VAT was provided in the VAT invoices for the goods supplied, but the taxable person did not know and could not have known about that?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/8

Appeal brought on 23 December 2015 by the Czech Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 October 2015 in Joined Cases T-659/13 and T-660/13 –Czech Republic v Commission

(Case C-696/15 P)

(2016/C 078/09)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

— set aside the judgment under appeal,

— annul Regulation No 885/2013 (1) and Regulation No 886/2013 (2) in their entirety, and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

In the alternative:

— set aside the judgment under appeal,

— annul Articles 3(1), 8 and 9(1)(a) of Regulation No 885/2013 and Articles 5(1), 9 and 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 886/2013, and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward three grounds of appeal.

First ground of appeal: breach of the principle of legal certainty. In the judgment under appeal the General Court erred in law by reaching the conclusion that the obligations under Regulation No 885/2013 and Regulation No 886/2013 do not apply to a Member State which has not yet decided to deploy in its territory the applications and services of intelligent transport systems, even though that conclusion does not follow from those regulations.

Second ground of appeal: infringement of Article 13(2) of the Treaty on European Union in conjunction with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In the judgment under appeal the General Court erred in law by reaching the conclusion that, when the Commission adopts acts under delegated powers, it has a wide enough discretion for it not to have to remain within the bounds of the specific delegating provisions.

Third ground of appeal: procedural errors before the General Court. In the judgment under appeal the General Court badly distorted several arguments put forward by the Czech Republic, and there were some arguments of the Czech Republic which it did not address at all. Those procedural errors had a fundamental effect on the General Court’s assessment of the pleas in law.

(1) OJ 2013 L 247, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2013 L 247, p. 6.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/10

Action brought on 14 December 2015 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-665/15)

(2016/C 059/10)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by failing to be connect to the European Union driving licence network, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(5)(d) of Directive 2006/126/EC (1).

— order Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

It is apparent from Directive 2006/126 and from case-law that a Member State which issues a driving licence is required to verify whether the minimum requirements for the issue of driving licences are fulfilled.

If the Portuguese Republic is not connected to the European Union driving licence network (RESPER), it cannot verify whether the minimum requirements for the issue of driving licences are fulfilled. It cannot, in particular, verify whether the applicant already holds a driving licence in another Member State.

Moreover, as the Portuguese Republic is not connected to RESPER, other Member States cannot verify, together with Portugal, whether the minimum requirements for the issue of driving licences are fulfilled.

It should be added that other Member States cannot carry out any form of control, together with Portugal, in cases in which the minimum requirements for the issue of driving licences are clearly not fulfilled.

Accordingly, as Portugal is not connected to RESPER, it undermines the essential purpose of the requirement to be connected to the network and of Directive 2006/126, namely to improve road safety and facilitate the free movement of persons.

Article 7(5)(d) of Directive 2006/126 clearly establishes that Member States must use the EU driving licence network, in particular in order to carry out checks and especially in order to prevent a licence holder having more than one driving licence.

Under Article 16(2) of the directive, Member States were required to apply Article 7(5) of the directive as from 19 January 2013.

(1) Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (recast) (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 7 December 2015 — Robeco Hollands Bezit NV and Others v Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM)

(Case C-658/15)

(2016/C 098/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Robeco Hollands Bezit NV, Robeco Duurzaam Aandelen NV, Robeco Safe Mix NV, Robeco Solid Mix NV, Robeco Balanced Mix NV, Robeco Growth Mix NV, Robeco Life Cycle Funds NV, Robeco Afrika Fonds NV, Robeco Global Stars Equities, Robeco All Strategy Euro Bonds, Robeco High Yield Bonds, Robeco Property Equities

Respondent: Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM)

Question referred

Must a system in which multiple fund agents and brokers participate who, within that system, represent respectively ‘open end’ investment funds and investors in commercial transactions, and which, in fact, facilitates exclusively those ‘open end’ investment funds in their obligation to execute the purchase and selling orders for shares placed by investors, be regarded as a regulated market within the meaning of Article 4(1).14 of the MiFID (1) and, if so, what characteristics are determinant in that regard?

(1) Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 6 November 2015 — Wallenborn Transports SA v Hauptzollamt Gießen

(Case C-571/15)

(2016/C 090/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hessisches Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wallenborn Transports SA

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Gießen

Questions referred

Question 1:

Is the VAT rule of a Member State which states that free zones of control type I (free ports) do not form part of the territory of the country one of the situations referred to in Article 156 as specified in the first subparagraph of Article 61 and in the first subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax? (1)

If this question is answered in the affirmative:

Question 2:

Where goods are subject to customs duties, does the chargeable event also occur and VAT also become chargeable in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax when the chargeable event in respect of those duties occurs and those duties become chargeable, if the chargeable event in respect of those duties and the chargeability of those duties occurs within a free zone of control type I and the VAT legislation of the Member State to which the free zone belongs provides that free zones of control type I (free ports) do not form part of the territory of the country?

If Question 2 is answered in the negative:

Question 3:

Where goods transported under the external transit procedure without that procedure ending in a free zone of control type I are removed from customs supervision in the free zone so that a customs debt is incurred in respect of the goods under Article 203(1) of the Customs Code, (2) does the chargeable event occur and VAT become chargeable in respect of goods at the same time in accordance with another chargeable event, namely under Article 204(1)(a) of the Customs Code, because, prior to the act by means of which the goods were removed from customs supervision, the goods were not presented to customs at one of the customs offices competent in respect of the free zone situated within the territory of the country and the transit procedure was not ended there?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 16 December 2015 — Mohammad Zadeh Khorassani v Kathrin Pflanz

(Case C-678/15)

(2016/C 106/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mohammad Zadeh Khorassani

Defendant: Kathrin Pflanz

Question referred

Is the reception and transmission of an order which relates to a portfolio management (Article 4(1)(9) of the MiFID) an investment service within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 4(1)(2) (1) in conjunction with point 1 of Section A of Annex I to the MiFID?

(1) Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 191/3

Appeal brought on 10 September 2015 by Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2015 in Case T-548/12 Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG v OHIM

(Case C-487/15 P)

(2016/C 191/04)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG (represented by: J. Krenzel, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Redrock Construction s.r.o.

By order of 25 February 2016, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 18 December 2015 — Online Games Handels GmbH and Others v Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich

(Case C-685/15)

(2016/C 118/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Online Games Handels GmbH, Frank Breuer, Nicole Enter, Astrid Walden

Defendant authority: Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich

Question referred

Is Article 56 TFEU or Article 49 et seq. TFEU, in the light of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be interpreted, having regard to the judicial objectivity and impartiality required by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (in particular with regard to its judgment of 18 May 2010, Application No 64962/01, paragraph 54), as precluding, in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (in particular its judgment of 30 April 2014, C-390/12, (1) a national rule according to which, in the case of administrative offence proceedings, it is not for the State prosecution services (or other State prosecution bodies) in their function of representing the prosecution but rather for the court called upon to rule on the legality of the criminal measure against which an action has been brought, of its own motion and independently of the conduct of the parties to the proceedings, (in one and the same person/function) to state and delimit wholly independently the evidence justifying the criminal law protection of the quasi-monopoly regulation of the national gambling market and then autonomously to investigate and evaluate it?

(1) ECLI:EU:C:2014:281 Pfleger and Others.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 326/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 30 November 2015 — Susanne Sokoll-Seebacher and Manfred Naderhirn

(Case C-634/15)

(2016/C 326/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Susanne Sokoll-Seebacher, Manfred Naderhirn

Intervening parties: Agnes Hemetsberger, Mag. Jungwirth und Mag. Fabian OHG and Others

By the order of 30 June 2016, the Court (Eighth Chamber) orders:

The judgment of 13 February 2014 in Sokoll-Seebacher (C-367/12, EU:C:2014:68) must be read as meaning that the criterion relating to a strict limit on the number of ‘persons who continue to be served’, laid down by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, is not to be applied, for the purposes of determining the existence of a need to open a new pharmacy, in a general manner, in every specific situation which will be the subject of an assessment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/16

Appeal brought on 30 November 2015 by August Storck KG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2015 in Case T-366/14: August Storck v EUIPO

(Case C-636/15 P)

(2016/C 270/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: August Storck KG (represented by: N. Gregor, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 11 May 2016 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
2.

If so, must the provisions of Article 43 of the Treaty establishing the European Union, now Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding national legislation, aimed at preventing tax evasion or avoidance, from imposing a condition that the use of the common system of taxation applicable to mergers and transactions treated as such is to be subject to a process of prior approval only as regards transfers made to foreign legal persons, but not transfers made to legal persons incorporated under national law?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone (Italy) lodged on 5 January 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Paola Tonachella

(Case C-8/16)

(2016/C 090/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Frosinone

Party to the main proceedings

Paola Tonachella

Question referred

Must Article 49 et seq. and Article 56 et seq. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as supplemented in the light of the principles set out in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 February 2012 in [Case C-72/10], be interpreted as precluding a provision of national legislation which makes it compulsory to transfer free of charge, at the time of the cessation of business owing to the expiry of the final term of a licence or as a result of measures revoking or terminating that licence, rights to use tangible and intangible property to collect bets and to manage betting and gaming?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/12

Action brought on 26 January 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

(Case C-42/16)

(2016/C 118/15)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland

Form of order sought

— declare that, by issuing duplicate driving licences whose administrative validity period expires on 18 January 2033, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 7(2) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (1) and that, by failing to join the EU driving licence network, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(5)(d) of Directive 2006/126/EC;

— order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

One of the main aims of Directive 2006/126/EC is to raise the level of protection of driving licences. By applying the time limits under the directive, that aim may be realised and the latest methods made use of when issuing driving licences for preventing fraud and achieving the traffic safety objectives of the directive. Article 1 of Directive 2006/126/EC requires the introduction of a national driving licence based on the Community model in Annex I. Article 7(1) of the directive lays down requirements for driving licences and Article 7(2) defines the administrative validity of driving licences issued as from 19 February 2013. The administrative validity period of duplicate driving licences issued in Finland after 19 January 2013 can be much longer than is permitted by Article 7(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2006/126/EC.

In accordance with Article 7(5)(d) of Directive 2006/126/EC, the Member States are to use the EU driving licence network once the network is brought into operation. The EU driving licence network (RESPER) has been set up and it became operational on 19 January 2013. Since Finland has not joined the EU driving licence network (RESPER), it is not possible to ascertain in the network whether the conditions for issuing a driving licence are satisfied. The other Member States cannot check together with Finland the fulfilment of the conditions for issuing a driving licence, and cannot exchange information with Finland through the network. The exchange of information in accordance with Article 15 of Directive 2006/126/EC is thus not possible with Finland by using the EU driving licence network.

(1) OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 4 January 2016 — J.D. v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

(Case C-4/16)

(2016/C 111/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: J.D.

Respondent: Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

Question referred

Is the term ‘hydropower’ as a renewable energy source, set out in Article 2(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, (1) in conjunction with Article 5(3) thereof and recital 30 in the preamble thereto, to be interpreted as relating only to energy produced by a hydroelectric power station using the downward flow of inland surface waters, including rivers, or as relating also to energy produced in a hydroelectric power station (which is not a pure pumped-storage or mixed-power station) sited at the point of discharge of industrial waste water from another plant?

(1) OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16.
2.

Must Article 67(2) TFEU and Articles 20 and 21 of Regulation No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), or any other rules of EU law, be interpreted as precluding a rule of national law which grants the police authorities of the Member State in question the power briefly to stop and question any person on a train or on the premises of the railways of that Member State, with a view to impeding or stopping unlawful entry into the territory of that Member State, and to request that person to produce for purposes of checking the identity documents or border crossing papers he is carrying and visually inspect the articles he is carrying, if, on the basis of known facts or border police experience, it may be presumed that such trains or railway premises are used for unlawful entry and that entry is effected from a State party to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement), in the absence of any temporary reintroduction of border controls at the relevant internal border pursuant to Article 23 et seq. of the Schengen Borders Code?