ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
If Question 1(a) is to be answered in the negative:

Is the revocation or termination of the residence permit issued to a beneficiary of refugee status (by expulsion under national law, for example) permissible under European Law only in cases where the conditions laid down in Article 21(3) in conjunction with (2) of Directive 2004/83/EC (or the identically-worded provisions of Directive 2011/95/EU, the successor to Directive 2004/83/EC) are satisfied?
1.

Failure to assess the alleged abuse of rights as a generally applicable concept of law In the judgment under appeal, the General Court committed an error of law in failing to take account of the case-law of the Court of Justice pursuant to which an abuse of rights, which is a generally applicable concept of law, which permits and requires an assessment of the circumstances of the individual case, must also be observed in relation to Community trade mark law. It claims that, on the contrary, the General Court limited itself to finding that the proceedings under Article 52(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) constitute a ‘Popularantrag’ (an administrative application which may be made by any legal person) and, thus, did not asses the specific circumstances of the case at issue. In doing so, the General Court failed to have regard to the fact that, although the legislature intended invalidity proceedings brought against a mark under Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 to be a ‘Popularantrag’, this does not preclude, however, consideration of the alleged abuse of rights as a generally applicable concept of law which is also to be observed under Community law. The exclusion of claims of an abuse of rights is not the same as the introduction of a requirement that positive evidence be furnished by the applicant for invalidity of a need for legal protection and, consequently, does not have the effect that the right to bring an action is limited by the adoption of addition requirements. Moreover, the fact that the legislature has made invalidity proceedings subject to application and that a court cannot declare a registered trade mark invalid of its own motion militate in favour of the interpretation that claims of an abuse of rights should be observed in the context of Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.
2.

If the answer to Question 1 is that the second alternative applies: Is Article 9(2)(e) of Directive 2004/83/EC to be interpreted as meaning that military service in a conflict (international or domestic) must predominantly or systematically call for or require the commission of crimes or acts as defined in Article 12(2) of Directive 2004/83/EC (first alternative), or is it sufficient if the applicant for asylum states that, in individual cases, crimes, as defined in Article 12(2)(a) of Directive 2004/83/EC, were committed by the armed forces to which he belongs in the area of operations in which they were deployed, either because individual operational orders have proved to be criminal in that sense, or as a result of the excesses of individuals (second alternative)?
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does that provision then fall outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU in the case where that provision is (also) intended to improve the working conditions of the employees who come within the scope of the collective labour agreement, and is it also relevant in that regard whether those working conditions are thereby improved directly or only indirectly?
1.

Is the requirement giving entitlement to tax exemption under Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) fulfilled and is there no exception under the second paragraph of Article 139(1) of the Directive in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings in which it was established that the absence of the characteristic of a ‘person registered under the ZDDS’ in respect of the acquirer of the goods was indicated in the Union database after the actual supply, but the applicant claims that it acted with due diligence by obtaining information in this system which is not documented? The late recording of the characteristic of a ‘person registered under the ZDDS’ emerges from hard copies/information of the tax authorities.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 336/11

Appeal brought on 24 September 2013 by Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2013 in Case T-197/12 Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-509/13 P)

2013/C 336/23

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 in Case T-197/12 and, consequently, reject the application to register Community figurative mark No 7585045 METRO for services in Class 36;

— order the other parties to the proceedings to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant essentially raises three grounds of appeal against the judgment of the General Court referred to above.

First, the appellant accuses the General Court of having infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Community trade mark Regulation No 207/2009, (1) as a result of a misinterpretation of the services covered by the mark in conflict and a failure to assess the marks at issue as a whole.

Second, the General Court has delivered contradictory judgments in cases involving the same parties and in which similar marks were at issue. The judgment in Case T-284/11, which is very closely related to the present case, was not taken into account even though it was submitted in the proceedings in good time and in accordance with the procedure.

Third, the appellant submits that there were errors in the proceedings before the General Court which adversely affected its interests and which deprived it repeatedly of legal protection. In particular, the oral proceedings were carried out without the applicant, even though it had applied for them to be postponed for an important reason, and did so in accordance with the relevant procedure.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
1.

Is Article 4(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/60/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as last amended by Directive 2009/31/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, (‘the Water Framework Directive’) to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States must — unless a derogation is granted — refuse to authorise a project if it may cause a deterioration in the status of a body of surface water, or is that provision merely a statement of an objective for management planning?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/47

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 13 September 2013 — Mohamed Ali Ben Alaya v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-491/13)

2013/C 344/82

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mohamed Ali Ben Alaya

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Question referred

Does Council Directive 2004/114/EC (1) of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service establish a non-discretionary right to a visa for the purposes of studies and the subsequent residence permit under Article 12 of the so called ‘Student Directive’, if the ‘conditions of admission’, namely those listed in Articles 6 and 7 of the directive, are met and there are no grounds for refusing the visa under Article 6(1)(d) of the directive?

(1) OJ 2004 L 375, p. 12.
Does the distribution right under Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) include the right to offer the original or copies of the work to the public for sale?

If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 352/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 9 September 2013 — Sysmex Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

(Case C-480/13)

2013/C 352/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sysmex Europe GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

Question referred

Should a product have been classified, in 2005, under heading 3212 of the Combined Nomenclature (1) as a dye or colouring matter where it is composed of solvents and of a polymethine substance which can have a certain colouring effect — which, on textiles at least, is not permanent — but which, in the case of the product to be classified, serves to obtain information on particles (white blood cells) contained in a test solution (pre-treated blood) by means of a process in which, through the deposition of ions in defined components of the particles (nucleic acids), the substance forms molecular structures which, when exposed to laser light on a certain wavelength, become fluorochromatic for a limited period and this state and its extent are measured with the aid of a special photoelectric cell?

(1) The Combined Nomenclature in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1).
1.

Must headings 9018 and 9019 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff be interpreted as meaning that the following devices: ‘UltraPulse Encore laser’ tips, ‘Light Sheer ST’, ‘IPL Quantum SR’ and its ‘HR upgd for IPL Quantum’ and ‘DL upgd for IPL Quantumsystem’ heads, ‘Ultrashape contour I’ treatment heads, the ‘IPL Quantum SR 560’ device, the ‘Ls-Duet’ device and its accessories, and the Lumenis M22 appliance, which are used in the practice of medicine, may be classified under those headings?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/25

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Strasbourg (France) lodged on 8 October 2013 — Geoffrey Léger v Ministre des affaires sociales et de la santé, Établissement français du sang

(Case C-528/13)

2013/C 367/46

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Strasbourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Geoffrey Léger

Defendants: Ministre des affaires sociales et de la santé, Établissement français du sang

Question referred

In the light of Annex III to Directive 2004/33/EC, (1) does the fact that a man has sexual relations with another man constitute in itself sexual behaviour placing him at a high risk of acquiring severe infectious diseases that can be transmitted by blood and justifying a permanent deferral from blood donation for persons having engaged in that sexual behaviour, or is it merely capable of constituting, in the light of the circumstances of the individual case, sexual behaviour placing him at a risk of acquiring infectious diseases that can be transmitted by blood and justifying a temporary deferral from blood donation for a period determined after the cessation of the risk behaviour?

(1) Commission Directive 2004/33/EC of 22 March 2004 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for blood and blood components (OJ 2004 L 91, p. 25).
4.

Does the fisheries partnership agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco mean that the Kingdom of Morocco is entitled to develop and carry out its own domestic industrial pelagic fishing alongside the agreement below the 29th Parallel (N)? If that is the case, does the agreement entitle the Kingdom of Morocco to charter or grant licences directly to Community fishing vessels for its domestic fishing without there being a need for a permit from the European Community?
1.

The General Court infringed European Union law in its interpretation of the case-law relating to the concept of the actual beneficiary for the purposes of examining the admissibility of actions contesting decisions declaring an aid scheme to be unlawful and incompatible. In particular, — the General Court erred in its interpretation of the case-law relating to the concept of the actual beneficiary and distorted the facts in applying that concept to the operations carried out by the appellant after 21 December 2007; — the General Court also erred in law in its interpretation of the concept of the actual beneficiary for the purposes of the case-law, in relation to the operations prior to 21 December 2007.
1.

Must the aim and scope of Directive 2003/109/EC, (1) or of Article 5(2) and/or of Article 11(1) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the imposition of the civic integration obligation, under national law, on third-country nationals who have acquired long-term resident status, with penalties in the form of a system of fines, cannot be reconciled therewith?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo no 6 de Bilbao (Spain) lodged on 25 October 2013 — Grupo Hospitalario Quirón S.A. v Departamento de Sanidad del Gobierno Vasco

(Case C-552/13)

2014/C 24/05

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo no 6 de Bilbao

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grupo Hospitalario Quirón S.A.

Defendant: Departamento de Sanidad del Gobierno Vasco

Co-defendant: Instituto de Religiosas Siervas de Jesús de la Caridad

Question referred

Is the requirement, included in public contracts for the management of public health-care services, that the provision of health services which is the subject-matter of such contracts be carried out ONLY in a determined municipality, which is not necessarily the municipality in which the patients reside, compatible with European Union law?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 31/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 3 December 2013 — Skatteverket v Hilkka Hirvonen

(Case C-632/13)

2014/C 31/09

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Hilkka Hirvonen

Question referred

Does Article 45 TFEU preclude provisions in a Member State’s legislation which mean that a person resident in another Member State — who receives all or almost all his income from the first Member State — can choose between two entirely different systems of taxation, that is to say, either to be taxed at source at a lower tax rate but without the right to such tax relief as is applicable under the ordinary income tax system, or to be taxed on his income under the latter system and thus be able to benefit from the tax relief in question?
1.

Error of law (Second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, in relation to Article 3 of Regulation No 1 (1) determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community). In the appellant’s view, infringement of the rules governing languages in the statement of objections in a competition proceeding is an infringement of an essential procedural requirement that must entail the annulment of the decision ultimately made in that proceeding, even if that infringement does not affect the undertaking’s rights of the defence. Since the General Court did not annul the contested decision in the judgment under appeal, as the appellant had claimed it should, it infringed the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, in relation to Article 3 of Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/21

Appeal brought on 25 November 2013 by Issam Anbouba against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-592/11 Anbouba v Council

(Case C-630/13 P)

2014/C 45/37

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Issam Anbouba (represented by: J.-M. Salva and M.-A. Bastin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2013 in Case T-592/11 Issam Anbouba v Council of the European Union;

— Declare the decision to include the appellant on the list of persons and entities covered by the economic sanctions to be unlawful;

— Annul the decisions and regulations contested in Case T-592/11;

— Order the Council to pay the costs of the two actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant invokes two grounds.

In the first place, the appellant considers that the General Court erred in law by holding that the Council, without being able to adduce evidence that the appellant supports the Syrian regime, correctly applied a presumption that the directors of the principal undertakings of Syria support the Syrian regime. The first part of the ground of appeal alleges the absence of a legal basis for such a presumption. The extremely serious and constraining nature of the restrictive measures means that they may not be applied on the basis of a presumption for which due provision has not been made by any regulatory act. The second part of the ground of appeal alleges the disproportionate nature of that presumption in relation to the objective pursued, in particular due to its extremely general nature. The third part of the ground of appeal alleges the irrebuttable nature of that presumption. Evidence of the negative, that there is no support for the regime, is, in practical terms, impossible to adduce, and the provision of positive proof of opposition to the regime cannot reasonably be regarded as the only means of establishing the absence of a link with the regime.

In the second place, the appellant accuses the General Court of having given judgment without evidence produced by the Council. By the first part of its second ground of appeal, the appellant considers that the General Court erred in law, first, by not carrying out a normal review of the contested decisions, and second, by giving judgment without the Council providing it with evidence. In the second part of its second ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the General Court failed to declare, in the judgment under appeal, a manifest infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem and the rights of the defence of the appellant. The General Court relieved the Council of the requirement to furnish evidence or the grounds justifying the failure to provide that evidence and accepted that the Council could base its decision solely on a presumption on which it, however, could not validly rely.
4.

In the light of Articles 109(a), 110 and 256(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/1993, (1) are special administrative procedures necessary, such as submitting an application or presenting a EUR.1 certificate to a specific authority, in order to trigger the specific effect, namely, the concession by the customs authority of the preferential tariff scheme under Article 98 of the same regulation?
4.

As regards the second plea, the Council considers that the course of action of the Commission has infringed the principle of sincere cooperation on four counts: 1) by knowingly impinging on the powers that the Council enjoys pursuant to Article 16 TEU and therefore acting in breach of the principle of distribution of powers of Article 13(2) TEU and consequently of the principle of institutional balance; 2) by knowingly and unilaterally disregarding the role of Member States in the matter, in breach of the principle of conferral of powers of Article 4(1) TEU; 3) by intentionally acting in a manner which rendered ineffectual the efforts of the Council to correct the situation created by the Commission; and 4) by knowingly acting in a manner which compromised the principle of unity in the external representation of the Union.
1.

In proceedings brought before a local court for a declaration of the invalidity of a contract (standard contract terms), in which the consumer also seeks in his application a declaration of the unfairness of a term of the contract at issue in the proceedings, and thereby provides a basis for the jurisdiction of another court, the county court (törvényszék), is there a disadvantage for the consumer, given that, in proceedings brought by the other party to the contract, the consumer can rely on the unfairness of a contract term (1) before the local court, and transfer to the county court burdens the consumer with higher costs?
1.

Do Articles 51 et seq. of Italian Law No 89/1913 concerning the profession of notary, in conjunction with Articles 1350 and 2657 of the Civil Code, give rise to a de facto monopoly on the provision of services by notaries with regard to drawing up and authenticating deeds relating to the sale of immovable property in Italy, in clear breach of the rules and principles laid down by the Treaties of the European Union (Article 49 of the EU Treaty), which provide for the free movement of services within the Member States of the European Union, and in particular of Directive 2006/123/EC (1) of 12 December 2006 [on services in the internal market] (referred to as the Bolkestein directive), implemented in Italy by Legislative Decree No 59 of 26 March 2010 and published in G.U. No 94 of 23 April 2010?
2.

If the State guarantee granted by that Decree is incompatible with the internal market, what remedies are available under Community law for any damage to the interests of the persons concerned?
First ground of appeal, alleging misapplication of the legal concept of ‘personal data’ as defined by Article 2 of Regulation No. 45/2001 (1).

The General Court erred in finding that the combination of names and opinions constitutes personal data. The concept of ‘personal data’ does not include opinions provided in the course of participation in a public committee where experts, whose names and other personal details are publicly available, are called on to participate due to their renowned expertise.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Płocku (Poland) lodged on 30 September 2013 — Urszula Leśniak-Jaworska, Małgorzata Głuchowska-Szmulewicz v Prokuratura Okręgowa w Płocku

(Case C-520/13)

2014/C 253/19

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Płocku

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Urszula Leśniak-Jaworska, Małgorzata Głuchowska-Szmulewicz

Defendant: Prokuratura Okręgowa w Płocku

By order of 27 March 2014, the Court of Justice ruled that it manifestly lacked jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Sąd Rejonowy w Płocku.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 85/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 2 July 2013 — SC Schuster & Co Ecologic SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu

(Case C-371/13)

2014/C 85/17

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Schuster & Co Ecologic SRL

Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu

By Order of 7 November 2013, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) finds that it clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred to it by the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania).