ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3.

In cases in which extradition must be carried out without taking into consideration the specific level of protection established for the citizens of the State to which the request for extradition has been made, must the Member State to which the request for extradition has been made verify compliance with the safeguards established in Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, that is, that no one may be extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment? May such verification be limited to checking that the State requesting extradition is a party to the Convention against Torture or is it necessary to check the factual situation by taking into consideration the evaluation of that State carried out by the bodies of the Council of Europe?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/19

Appeal brought on 9 April 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2015 in Case T-473/12: Aer Lingus Ltd. v European Commission

(Case C-164/15 P)

(2015/C 205/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan, T. Maxian Rusche, B. Stromsky, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Aer Lingus Ltd., Ireland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 in Case T-473/12 Aer Lingus v Commission in so far as it held that Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland (1) was annulled in so far as that decision orders the recovery of the aid from the beneficiaries for an amount which is set at EUR 8 per passenger in recital 70 of that decision; and

— reject the application to annul Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland;

— order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs; alternatively, — refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration; — reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal.

The appellant claims that by creating a new economic test to be applied when determining the amounts to be recovered from beneficiaries of State aid consisting of a tax measure fixing a lower rate by reference to a standard rate, the General Court violated Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 14 of Regulation 659/1999 (2).

(1) OJ L 119, p. 30.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 83, p. 1.
1)

Must Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 (1) be interpreted as meaning that an action for damages for the abrupt termination of an established business relationship for the supply of goods over several years to a retailer without a framework contract, nor an exclusivity agreement is a matter relating to tort?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/8

Request a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy) of 11 May 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Massimo Orsi

(Case C-217/15)

(2015/C 245/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere

Party to the main proceedings

Massimo Orsi

Questione pregiudiziale

On a proper construction of Article 4 of [Protocol No 7 to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms] and Article 50 [of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], is the provision made under Article 10b of Legislative Decree No 74/00 consistent with Community law, in so far as it permits the criminal liability of a person to whom a final assessment by the tax authorities of the State has already been issued imposing an administrative penalty in the sum of 30 % of the unpaid amount to be assessed in respect of the same act or omission (non-payment of VAT)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/24

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 20 April 2015 — Taser International Inc. v SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu

(Case C-175/15)

(2015/C 236/33)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Taser International Inc.

Defendant: SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu

Questions referred

Must Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘jurisdiction derived from other provisions of this Regulation’ also covers the situation in which the parties to a contract for the assignment of rights to a trade mark registered in a Member State of the European Union have decided, unequivocally and undisputedly, to confer jurisdiction to settle any dispute regarding fulfilment of contractual obligations on the courts of a State which is not a Member State of the European Union and in which the applicant is domiciled (has its seat), while the applicant has seised a court of a Member State of the European Union in whose territory the defendant is domiciled (has its seat)?

If the answer is in the affirmative:

Must Article 23(5) of that regulation be interpreted as not referring to a clause conferring jurisdiction on a State that is not a Member State of the European Union, so that the court seised pursuant to Article 2 of the regulation will determine jurisdiction according to the rules of private international law in its own national legislation?

Can a dispute relating to the enforcement, through the courts, of the obligation to assign rights to a trade mark registered in a Member State of the European Union, assumed under a contract between the parties to that dispute, be regarded as referring to a right ‘required to be deposited or registered’ within the meaning of Article 22(4) of the regulation, having regard to the fact that, under the law of the State in which the trade mark is registered, the assignment of rights to a trade mark must be entered in the Trade Mark Register and published in the Official Industrial Property Bulletin?

If the answer is in the negative, does Article 24 of the regulation preclude a court seised pursuant to Article 2 of the regulation, in a situation such as that described in the above question, from declaring that it does not have jurisdiction to determine the case, even though the defendant has entered an appearance before that court, including in the final instance, without contesting jurisdiction?

(1) OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
(b)

not to be credited as pensionable periods prior to entry into service, if they are completed before the 18th birthday, whereby there is no agreed transfer to the Federal Government for such periods if they are not credited, and the insured party is reimbursed for any contributions made to the pension insurance scheme, especially considering that, in the event that these periods are subsequently required to be credited under EU law, there would be a possible claim for the refund of the sums reimbursed by the social security organisation from the civil servant as well as the subsequent creation of an obligation on the part of the social security organisation to pay an agreed contribution to the Federal Government.
1)

For the purposes of the application of Article 8(1)(c) of the Framework Decision [2002/584/JHA] (1), must the expression ‘the existence of an ... arrest warrant’ be understood to refer to a national — domestic — arrest warrant issued in accordance with the criminal procedural rules of the issuing Member State, and therefore distinct from the European arrest warrant?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 254/11

Appeal brought on 29 May 2015 by European Commission 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-254/15 P)

(2015/C 254/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França, agents)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015, notified to the Commission on 23 March 2015, in Case T-413/13 City Cycle Industries v. Council of the European Union, reject the Application at first instance, and order the Applicant to pay the costs; or, alternatively,

— refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration; reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal brought by the Commission concerns the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015 in Case T-413/13. In that judgment, the General Court annulled, to the extent that it concerns City Cycle Industries, Article 1(1) and 3 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 (1) 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.

The Commission relies, in support of its appeal, on four grounds of appeal. First, the Commission argues that the General Court failed to assess ex officio whether the action for annulment was admissible under Article 263(4) TFEU. Second, the Commission considers that the General Court could not legally draw the conclusion that the Council had breached Article 13(1) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation (2), because such a conclusion is based on an incorrect interpretation of the relevant recital of the contested Regulation and on an incorrect interpretation of Article 13(1) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation. Third, the Commission argues that the General Court did not provide a sufficient reasoning for its conclusion, in breach of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Fourth, the Commission considers that the General Court breached the procedural rights of the Commission under Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ L 153, p. 1.

(2) 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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2015 — Elisabeth Schmitt v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH

(Case C-219/15)

(2015/C 279/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elisabeth Schmitt

Defendant: TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH

Questions referred

Is it the purpose and intention of the Directive (1) that, in the case of Class III medical devices, the notified body responsible for auditing the quality system, examining the design of the product and surveillance acts in order to protect all potential patients and may therefore, in the event of a culpable infringement of an obligation, have direct and unlimited liability towards the patients concerned?

Does it follow from the aforementioned points of Annex II to Directive 93/42/EEC that, in the case of Class III medical devices, the notified body responsible for auditing the quality system, examining the design of the product and surveillance is subject to a general obligation to examine devices, or at least to examine them where there is due cause?

Does it follow from the aforementioned points of Annex II to Directive 93/42/EEC that, in the case of Class III medical devices, the notified body responsible for auditing the quality system, examining the design of the product and surveillance is subject to a general obligation to examine the manufacturer’s business records and/or to carry out unannounced inspections, or at least to do so where there is due cause?

(1) Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1), Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 90/385/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices, Council Directive 93/42/EEC concerning medical devices and Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 2007 L 247, p. 21).
Case C-261/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Ieper (Belgium) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV v Gregory Demey

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Ieper (Belgium) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV v Gregory Demey

(Case C-261/15)

Referring court

Vredegerecht te Ieper

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV

Defendant: Gregory Demey

Question referred

Does Article 6(2), in fine, of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 ( 1 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations preclude the Belgian national penalty provisions, …, under which a train passenger without a ticket — and in the absence of regularisation within the periods laid down in the relevant regulations — commits a criminal offence, which excludes any contractual relationship between the transport company and the train passenger, with the consequence that the benefit of the legal protection provisions under European and Belgian national law which are based on that (exclusive) contractual relationship with that consumer, …, is also denied to the train passenger?

( 1 ) OJ 2007 L 315, p. 14.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/38

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Paris (France) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Eco-Emballages SA v Sphère France SAS, Schweitzer SAS, Carrefour Import SAS, Tissue France SCA, SCA Hygiène Products SAS, WEPA Troyes SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL, Kimberly-Clark SAS, Gopack SAS, Delipapier, CMC France SARL, Paul Hartmann SA, Wepa Lille SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti France SAS, Melitta France SAS, Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG, Scamark SAS, Système U Centrale Nationale SAS

(Case C-313/15)

(2015/C 294/49)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de commerce de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eco-Emballages SA

Defendants: Sphère France SAS, Schweitzer SAS, Carrefour Import SAS, Tissue France SCA, SCA Hygiène Products SAS, WEPA Troyes SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL, Kimberly-Clark SAS, Gopack SAS, Delipapier, CMC France SARL, Paul Hartmann SA, Wepa Lille SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti France SAS, Melitta France SAS, Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG, Scamark SAS, Système U Centrale Nationale SAS

Question referred

Does the concept of packaging, as defined in Article 3 of Directive 94/62/EC, amended by Directive 2004/12/EC (1), include ‘roll cores’ (rolls, tubes, cylinders) around which flexible material, such as paper or plastic film, is wound and sold to consumers?

(1) Directive 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 26).
1.

Do Article 11, first paragraph, subparagraphs 1, 2(b) and (3), and the last and penultimate recitals in the preamble to Council Directive 92/85/EEC (1) of 19 October 1992 and Article 157(1), (2) and (4) TFEU (formerly Article 141(1), (2) and (4) EC), Article 158 TFEU (formerly Article 142 EC), where it requires that ‘Member States shall endeavour to maintain the existing equivalence between paid holiday schemes’, Articles 2(2)(c) and 14(1)(c) of Directive 2006/54/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006, read together, and Article 15 and recitals 23 and 24 in the preamble to that directive, and, finally, Article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1), preclude national legislation which, by virtue of Article 3(1) of Law No 27 of 19 February 1981, in the version prior to the amendment made by Article 1(325) of Law No 311 of 30 December 2004, does not allow payment of the allowance provided for therein for periods of compulsory maternity leave prior to 1 January 2005?
1.

Must Articles 5 and 7 of Directive 2005/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (1) be interpreted as meaning that a combined offer consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software constitutes a misleading unfair commercial practice where the manufacturer of the computer has, via its retailer, provided information on each item of pre-installed software, but has not specified the cost of each individual component?
2.

If such a limitation of the effects is held to be compatible with the EU legislation, specifically Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, on the grounds that those concerned acted in good faith and that there is a risk of serious difficulties: a) What is meant by serious difficulties justifying the limitation of the effects? b) Must the risk of serious difficulties be duly established in the court proceedings in which it is invoked or, on the other hand, may the general assessment by the court of that risk be sufficient where there is no specific data on which to base that assessment?
1.

If a body governed by public law carries on an activity such as providing access to a road on payment of a toll and if in the Member State there are private bodies who collect tolls on different toll roads pursuant to an agreement with the public body concerned under national statutory provisions, is the second indent of Article 13 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the public body concerned must be deemed to be in competition with the private operators concerned such that to treat the public body as a non-taxable person is deemed to lead to a significant distortion of competition notwithstanding the facts that (a) there is not and cannot be any actual competition between the public body and the private operators concerned and (b) there is no evidence that there is any realistic possibility that any private operator could enter the market to build and operate a toll road which would compete with the toll road operated by the public body?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/22

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 26 June 2015 — The Queen on the application of Hemming (trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd.’) and others v Westminster City Council

(Case C-316/15)

(2015/C 311/27)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hemming, trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd.’, James Alan Poulton, Harmony Ltd, Gatisle Ltd, trading as ‘Janus’, Winart Publications Ltd, Darker Enterprises Ltd, Swish Publications Ltd.

Defendant: Westminster City Council

Questions referred

Where an applicant for the grant or renewal of a sex establishment licence has to pay a fee made up of two parts, one related to the administration of the application and non-returnable, the other for the management of the licensing regime and refundable if the application is refused:

(1) does the requirement to pay a fee including the second refundable part mean, as a matter of European law and without more, that the respondents incurred a charge from their applications which was contrary to article 13(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC on Services in the Internal Market (1) in so far as it exceeded any cost to Westminster City Council of processing the application?

(2) does a conclusion that such a requirement should be regarded as involving a charge — or, if it is so to be regarded, a charge exceeding the cost to Westminster City Council of processing the application — depend on the effect of further (and if so what) circumstances, for example: (a) evidence establishing that the payment of the second refundable part involved or would be likely to involve an applicant in some cost or loss, (b) the size of the second refundable part and the length of time for which it is held before being refunded, or (c) any saving in the costs to Westminster City Council of processing applications(and so in their non-refundable cost) that results from requiring an up-front fee consisting of both parts to be paid by all applicants?

(1) OJ L 376, p. 36
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/29

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 6 July 2015 — Unionen v Almega Tjänsteförbunden, ISS Facility Services AB

(Case C-336/15)

(2015/C 311/34)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Arbetsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Unionen

Defendants: Almega Tjänsteförbunden, ISS Facility Services AB

Question referred

Is it compatible with the Transfer of Undertakings Directive (1), after a year has elapsed following the transfer of an undertaking, on application of a provision in the transferee’s collective agreement which means that, where a certain contiguous length of service with a single employer is a condition for an extended notice period to be granted, not to take account of the length of service with the transferor, when the employees, under an identical provision in the collective agreement which applied to the transferor, had the right to have that length of service taken into account?

(1) Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).
2.

Do projects such as No 2001/LT/16/P/PE/003: ‘Establishment of a waste management system for the Alytus Region’, which was granted support by Commission Decision No PH(2001)5367 of 13 December 2001 approving Measure 2001 LT 16 P PE 003, as amended by Commission Decision No PH/2002/9380 of 23 December 2002, correspond to the concept of a ‘multiannual programme’ set out in Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2015 — Wortmann KG Internationale Schuhproduktionen v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

(Case C-365/15)

(2015/C 328/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wortmann KG Internationale Schuhproduktionen

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

Question referred

Is Article 241 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the national law referred to therein must, having regard to the general EU-law principle of effectiveness, provide for the payment of interest on reimbursed import duties from the time of payment of those duties up to the time of their reimbursement, even in cases in which the right to reimbursement has not been the subject of a claim before a national court?

(1) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.