ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Is a national rule, such as that embodied in the Flemish Decreet van 17 juli 2000 houdende de organisatie van de elektriciteitsmarkt (Decree of 17 July 2000 on the organisation of the market in electricity), as implemented by the Besluit (Decision) of the Flemish Government of 5 March 2004, as amended by the Besluit of the Flemish Government of 25 February 2005 on the promotion of the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources, where — an obligation is imposed on the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or the transmission network, to submit a certain number of green certificates annually to the Regulatory Authority (Article 23 of the aforementioned Decreet); — an administrative fine is imposed by the Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG) on the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or the transmission network when the supplier has not submitted a sufficient number of green certificates to fulfil a quota obligation which has been imposed in respect of green certificates (Article 37(2) of the aforementioned Decreet); — it is expressly provided that guarantees of origin from other countries may be submitted under certain conditions in order to fulfil the quota obligation (Article 15c(2) of the Besluit of the Flemish Government of 5 March 2004, as applicable in this case); — the Regulatory Authority cannot or will not take into account any guarantees of origin originating from Norway and Denmark, and that being in the absence of implementing measures on the part of the Flemish Government, which has acknowledged the equality or equivalence of those certificates (Article 25 of the aforementioned Decreet and Article 15c(2) of the Besluit of 5 March 2004), without that equality or equivalence being investigated by the Regulatory Authority in concrete terms; — in fact, during the whole time that the Decreet of 17 July 2000 was in force, only certificates for the production of green energy generated in the Flemish Region were taken into account when ascertaining whether the quota obligation had been fulfilled, whereas for the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or transmission network there was no possibility whatsoever of demonstrating that the guarantees of origin from other Member States of the European Union met the condition of the existence of equal or equivalent guarantees regarding the granting of such certificates, compatible with Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 11 of the EEA Agreement and/or Article 36 of that Treaty and Article 13 of the EEA Agreement?
—

declare that, by applying different tax treatment to donations and successions between beneficiaries and donees resident in Spain and those not resident in Spain, between bequeathers resident in Spain and those not resident in Spain, and between donations and similar transfers of immovable property situated within and outside of Spain, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 21 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Articles 28 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/6

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg lodged on 8 May 2012 — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Fjola HLIDDAL

(Case C-216/12)

2012/C 235/10

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caisse nationale des prestations familiales

Respondent: Fjola HLIDDAL

Question referred

Does a benefit such as the parental leave allowance provided for by Articles 306 to 308 of the [Luxembourg] Code de la Sécurité Sociale constitute a family benefit within the meaning of Article 1(u)(i) and Article 4(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to the members of their families moving within the Community, (1) as amended and updated and applicable in accordance with Annex II, Section A, (1) of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons and the Final Act signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999? (2)

(1) OJ 1971, L 149, p. 2.

(2) OJ 2002, L 114, p. 6.
—

declare that, by failing to adopt the legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2009/113/EC (1) of 25 August 2009 amending Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences, or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of such provisions, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/16

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 11 May 2012 — Andreas Ingemar Thiele Meneses v Region Hannover

(Case C-220/12)

2012/C 287/29

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Andreas Ingemar Thiele Meneses

Defendant: Region Hannover

Question referred

Does the right to freedom of movement and freedom of residence conferred on a Union citizen by Articles 20 and 21 TFEU preclude a regulatory system in national law under which German nationals with a permanent residence outside the Federal Republic of Germany may be awarded an education grant to attend an education establishment situated in a Member State of the European Union only if the education establishment is either in the country of permanent residence or in a neighbouring state of that country and, moreover, special circumstances of the individual case justify the grant?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 11 May 2012 — A. Karuse AS v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

(Case C-222/12)

2012/C 209/08

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tartu Ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A. Karuse AS

Defendant: Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

Question referred

Must the expression ‘in connection with road maintenance’ used in the definition of the exception permitted in Article 13(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) be interpreted as covering a tipping lorry with a laden weight of 25.5 tonnes carrying gravel along a public highway from a quarry to a site of road improvement and maintenance works?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 200/8

Appeal brought on 18 May 2012 by Abdulbasit Abdulrahim against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2012 in Case T-127/09: Abdulbasit Abdulrahim v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-239/12 P)

2012/C 200/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Abdulbasit Abdulrahim (represented by: H.A.S. Miller, Solicitor, E. Grieves, Barrister)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant seeks the following order if successful on both pleas:

— the Order of the General Court dated 28.2.12 is quashed

— it is declared that the action for annulment is not devoid of purpose

— the matter be remitted back to the General Court for it to determine the annulment application

— the Commission do pay the costs of this appeal and the costs in the General Court below, including those of making representations upon the Court's invitation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant bases his appeal on the following two pleas in law:

— that the General Court erred when it failed to: — hear from the Advocate-General, and/or; — invite representations from the appellant as to whether the application for annulment was devoid of purpose, and/or; — open the oral procedure on the question of whether the application for annulment was devoid of purpose.
1.

Must Articles 20, 45, 48 and 145 to 147 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFEU) be interpreted as precluding national legislation or national administrative practice which do not permit a worker who is a national of a Member State to transfer to the pension scheme of an international body situated in the territory of another Member State of the European Union, where he works and is insured, the pension contributions credited to the social security scheme of his own State, where he was previously insured?
5.

As a salary cut is not the only possible measure and is not necessary and fundamental to the efforts to consolidate public finances in a serious economic and financial crisis in the country, is it contrary to the right laid down in Article 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to put at risk the standard of living and the financial commitments of employees and their families by means of such a reduction?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/12

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 24 May 2012 — Telecom Italia SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-255/12)

2012/C 217/26

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Telecom Italia SpA

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Question referred

Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.

(1) Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 250/9

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 30 May 2012 — Frédéric Hay v Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres

(Case C-267/12)

2012/C 250/15

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Frédéric Hay

Defendant: Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres

Question referred

Must Article 2(2)(b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 be interpreted as meaning that the choice of the national legislature to allow only persons of different sexes to marry can constitute a legitimate, appropriate and necessary aim such as to justify indirect discrimination resulting from the fact that a collective agreement which reserves an advantage in respect of pay and working conditions to employees who marry, thereby necessarily excluding from the benefit of that advantage same-sex partners who have entered into a civil solidarity pact?

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/18

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 1 March 2012 — Donal Brady v Environmental Protection Agency

(Case C-113/12)

2012/C 151/31

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court, Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Donal Brady

Defendant: Environmental Protection Agency

Questions referred

In the absence of a definitive interpretation of the meaning of ‘waste’ for the purposes of Union law, is a Member State permitted by national law to impose upon a producer of pig slurry the obligation to establish that it is not waste, or is waste to be determined by reference to objective criteria of the type referred to in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union:

1. If waste is to be determined by reference to objective criteria of the type referred to in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, what level of certainty of re-use of pig slurry is required, which a licensee collects and stores or may store for upwards of 12 months, pending its transfer to users?

2. If pig slurry is waste, or is determined to be waste in accordance with the application of the appropriate criteria, is it lawful for a Member State to impose upon its producer — who does not use it on his own lands, but disposes of it to third party landowners for use as fertilisers on those third parties’ lands — personal liability for compliance by those users with Union legislation concerning the control of waste and/or fertilisers, in order to ensure that the third parties’ use of that pig slurry by land spreading will not give rise to a risk of significant environmental pollution?

3. Is the aforesaid pig slurry excluded from the scope of the definition of ‘waste’ by virtue of Article 2(1)(b)(iii) of Directive 75/442/EEC (1), as amended by Council Directive 91/156 (2), by reason of its being ‘already covered by other legislation’, and in particular by Council Directive 91/676/EEC (3), in circumstances where, at the time the licence was granted, Ireland had not transposed Council Directive 91/676/EEC, no other domestic legislation controlled the application of pig slurry to land as fertiliser, and Council Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (4) had not then been adopted?

(1) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste

OJ L 194, p. 39

(2) Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste

OJ L 78, p. 32

(3) Council Directive 91/676/EEC OF 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources

OJ L 375, p. 1

(4) Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption

OJ L 273, p. 1
Concerning the Commission's decision of 12 November 2008 in State aid case N510/2008 (Sale of assets of Alitalia SpA): 1. Breach of law and procedure regarding admissibility. The General Court refused to acknowledge Ryanair's challenge against the merits of the Commission's decision and re-defined the subject matter of Ryanair's action as an action exclusively seeking to safeguard its procedural rights: 2. Infringement of Articles 4 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1). The obligations and monitoring mechanisms added to the measure as initially notified constituted modifications and conditions of the type attached to decisions pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. The appellant considers that the General Court erred in law by reason of a mistaken qualification of the obligations and monitoring mechanisms as undertaking; 3. Infringement of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 through the General Court's refusal to sanction the Commission's failure to examine all the relevant characteristics of the measures in their context: 4. Infringement of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. The General Court found that the Commission did not have to examine options other than the sale of Alitalia assets as notified by Italy. By not considering whether a private investor would have chosen an alternative solution, the General Court erred in law; 5. Other failures to apply the market economy investor principle; 6. Failure to identify the party having to repay the aid. The appellant considers that the General Court erred in law by disregarding the economic continuity between Alitalia and CAI.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 250/9

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 4 June 2012 — Samantha Elrick v Bezirksregierung Köln

(Case C-275/12)

2012/C 250/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Samantha Elrick

Defendant: Bezirksregierung Köln

Question referred

Do Articles 20 and 21 TFEU preclude a rule of national law according to which a German national who has her permanent residence in Germany and attends an educational establishment in a Member State of the European Union is refused a study grant under the Bundesausbildungsförderungsgesetz (BAföG) in respect of her attendance at that foreign educational establishment because the educational course attended abroad is of only one year’s duration, whereas she could have received a study grant under the BAföG for comparable studies in Germany, which would also have lasted for one year?
—

declare that, by failing to adopt the legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions necessary to bring its domestic law into conformity with Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, (1) or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 273/6

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 18 June 2012 — GREEN — SWAN PHARMACEUTICALS CR, a.s. v Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce

(Case C-299/12)

2012/C 273/09

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GREEN — SWAN PHARMACEUTICALS CR, a. s.

Defendant: Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce (The Czech Agricultural and Food Inspection Authority)

Questions referred

1. Is the following health claim: ‘The preparation also contains calcium and Vitamin D3, which help to reduce a risk factor in the development of osteoporosis and fractures’, a reduction of disease risk claim within the meaning of Article 2(2)(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1) of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 (2) of 9 February 2010, even though it is not expressly implied in this claim that the consumption of that preparation would significantly reduce a risk factor in the development of disease mentioned?

2. Does the concept of a trade mark or brand name within the meaning of Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010, also include a commercial communication on the packaging of the product?

3. Should the transitional provision in Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010, be interpreted to refer to (any) foods which existed prior to 1 January 2005, or to refer to foods to which a trade mark or brand name was affixed and which existed in that form before that date?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods; OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9.

(2) Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the list of nutrition claims (Text with EEA relevance); OJ 2010 L 37, p. 16.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/13

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 10 July 2012 — Rita van Caster, Patrick van Caster v Finanzamt Essen-Süd

(Case C-326/12)

2012/C 303/25

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rita van Caster, Patrick van Caster

Defendant: Finanzamt Essen-Süd

Question referred

Does the flat-rate taxation of income from so-called ‘intransparent’ (domestic and) foreign investment funds under Paragraph 6 of the Law on Investment Tax (Investmentsteuergesetz) infringe European Community law (Article 56 EC) because it amounts to a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital (Article 58(3)) EC)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/21

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands), lodged on 2 July 2012 — F. van der Helder, D. Farrington v College voor zorgverzekeringen (Cvz)

(Case C-321/12)

2012/C 287/39

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: F. van der Helder, D. Farrington

Respondent: College voor zorgverzekeringen (Cvz)

Question referred

Does the phrase ‘legislation [to which] the pensioner has been subject for the longest period of time’ in Article 28(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) refer to legislation concerning benefits in respect of sickness and maternity, to legislation concerning cash benefits in respect of old age, or to all legislation concerning the branches of social security mentioned in Article 4 of Regulation No 1408/71 which were applicable pursuant to Title II of that regulation?

(1) Council Regulation of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).
3.

Is it consistent with European Union law if, during proceedings to amend a decision relating to an application for invalidation of a patent, the measures, procedures and legal remedies are applied in such a way that: the national court, in connection with the requirement for novelty or an inventive step, assesses whether the invention is due the priority of the application date, or merely the priority of the amendment date, assuming that the legislation in force on the application date allowed the applicant to extend the technical content of the patent application, and the scope of the patent awarded, after the application date
—

The appellant also submits that the General Court breached Article 7(1)(e)(ii) CTMR. It should have observed that a two-dimensional sign may be, not only applied to, but also incorporated in a three-dimensional object. Applying Article 7(1)(e)(ii) CTMR thus requires to take account of all possible manners in which it can be envisaged, on the date of filing, that the sign in question could be embodied in a three-dimensional object. The General Court distorted the evidence by ruling that the Board of Appeal had based its examination exclusively on the goods actually marketed. In fact, the Board of Appeal made it clear that its findings are primarily based on the patents submitted by Pi-Design. In any event, reference to additional material, including patents and the goods actually marketed, should not be prohibited where such material corroborate the conclusion that the features of the contested sign, as filed, are liable to achieve a technical result once incorporated in a three dimensional object. This is the only appropriate approach for preserving the legal security and the public interest underlying Article 7(1)(e)(ii) CTMR.