ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Must Article 39 EC be interpreted as meaning that the Member State where a taxable person engages in paid employment is, when charging income tax, to take the personal and family circumstances of the interested party into account in circumstances where (i) that taxable person only worked for a part of the tax year in that Member State while living in another Member State, (ii) he received all, or almost all, of his income for that period in that State of employment, (iii) he has left, in the course of the relevant year, to live and work in another State, and (iv) when the tax year is considered as a whole, he did not receive all, or almost all, of his income in the first-mentioned State of employment?
1.

(a) Is the decision of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank of 6 September 2012 on Technical features of Outright Monetary Transactions incompatible with Article 119 and Article 127(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and with Articles 17 to 24 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank because it exceeds the monetary policy mandate of the European Central Bank laid down in the abovementioned provisions and encroaches upon the competence of the Member States? Is the mandate of the European Central Bank exceeded in particular because the decision of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank of 6 September 2012 (aa) is linked to economic assistance programmes of the European Financial Stability Facility or of the European Stability Mechanism (conditionality)? (bb) provides for the purchase of government bonds of selected Member States only (selectivity)? (cc) provides for the purchase of government bonds of programme countries in addition to assistance programmes of the European Financial Stability Facility or of the European Stability Mechanism (parallelism)? (dd) could undermine the limits and conditions laid down by assistance programmes of the European Financial Stability Facility or of the European Stability Mechanism (circumvention)? (b) Is the decision of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank of 6 September 2012 on Technical features of Outright Monetary Transactions incompatible with the prohibition of monetary financing enshrined in Article 123 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? Is compatibility with Article 123 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union precluded in particular by the fact that the decision of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank of 6 September 2012 (aa) does not provide for quantitative limits for government bond purchases (volume)? (bb) does not provide for a time gap between the issue of government bonds on the primary market and their purchase by the European System of Central Banks on the secondary market (market pricing)? (cc) allows all purchased government bonds to be held to maturity (interference with market logic)? (dd) does not contain any specific requirements for the credit standing of the government bonds to be purchased (default risk)? (ee) provides for the same treatment of the European System of Central Banks as private or other holders of government bonds (debt cut)?
1.

Is Article 7 of Regulation EC No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as meaning that a non-notified ‘early’ flight, with the result that the passengers cannot take the flight, is also covered by the regulation?
(1)

Must Directive [93/13] (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that currently governing the Spanish order for payment procedure (Articles 815 and 816 [of the] LEC), which does not mandatorily provide either for the examination of unfair terms or the intervention of the court, except when the Secretario Judicial considers it expedient or the debtors lodge an objection, because that legislation hinders or prevents examination of their own motion by the courts of contracts which may contain unfair terms?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 4 February 2014 — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

(Case C-51/14)

2014/C 142/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG

Respondent: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

Questions referred

1. Does Article 14(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 (1) contain the definitive provisions governing the replacement of sugar for storage-cost-reimbursement purposes and is it not a precondition under that provision that the replacement sugar must be produced by another manufacturer established on the territory of the same Member State?

2. If the answer is in the affirmative: Does Article 14(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 make it a condition for claiming reimbursement of storage costs that the replacement C sugar is ‘physically replaced’ at the premises of the sugar manufacturer?

3. If Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 (2) is applicable to the replacement of sugar: Does Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 make it a condition for claiming reimbursement of storage costs that the replacement C sugar is ‘physically replaced’ at the premises of the sugar manufacturer?

4. In the alternative: Is Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 invalid in so far as it requires the replacement sugar to have been ‘produced by another manufacturer established on the territory of the same Member State’?

(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 of 18 August 1978 laying down detailed rules for the offsetting of storage costs for sugar (OJ 1978 L 231, p. 5).

(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota (OJ 1981 L 262, p. 14).
2.

Does the provision on the consolidation of several persons into a single taxable person in the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) preclude national legislation under which (firstly) only a legal person, but not a partnership, can be integrated into the undertaking of another taxable person (a so-called ‘Organträger’ (controlling company)) and which (secondly) requires that this legal person ‘is integrated into the undertaking of the Organträger’ in financial, economic and organisational terms (in the sense of a relationship of control and subordination)?
2.

May a person who, according to the description of his position, has the power to plan, coordinate and supervise a branch of the credit institution’s activity or the execution of a function, but not the credit institution’s activity in its entirety, and who is not entitled to give orders or make binding decisions on behalf of other persons be regarded as a manager of a credit institution or as any other of the persons mentioned in part 7 of Annex I to the Directive? Must the nature of that branch of the credit institution’s activity or of that function be taken into account?
annul Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat stabilisers), in so far as it affects the appellant.

in the alternative, reduce the fines imposed on the appellant by Article 2(17) and (38) of that decision;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/31

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 April 2014 — Alfredo Rendón Marín v Administración del Estado

(Case C-165/14)

2014/C 175/38

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Section: Tercera

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alfredo Rendón Marín

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Question referred

Is national legislation which excludes the possibility of granting a residence permit to the parent of a European Union citizen who is a child and dependent on that parent, because the parent has a criminal record in the country in which the request is made, compatible with Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, interpreted in the light of the decisions of 19 October 2004 (Case C-200/02 Zhu-Chen) (1) and 8 March 2011 (Case C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano), (2) even if this results in the removal of the child from the territory of the European Union, as that child has to follow the parent?

(1) EU:C:2004:639.

(2) EU:C:2011:124.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 14 April 2014 — EasyPay AD, Finance Engineering AD v Ministerski savet na Republika Balgaria, Natsionalen osiguritelen institut

(Case C-185/14)

2014/C 194/21

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: EasyPay AD, Finance Engineering AD

Defendants: Ministerski savet na Republika Balgaria, Natsionalen osiguritelen institut

Questions referred

1. Is a postal service such as the postal money transfer service by which sums of money are transferred from the sender, which in this case is the State, to the recipients — persons entitled to social security payments — to be regarded as not being covered by the scope of Directive 97/67, (1) as amended by Directives 2002/39 (2) and 2008/6, (3) such that it is subject to the provisions of Articles 106 and 107 TFEU?

2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, are Articles 106 and 107 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that they do not permit a restriction of free competition in the provision of a postal service such as that described if that is justified by compelling considerations relating to the guarantee of a constitutional right of citizens and the social policy of the State and if at the same time the service, by its nature, may be qualified as a service of general economic interest, provided that the compensation received by the service provider is public service compensation which does not exceed the sum laid down in Article 2(1)(a) of European Commission Decision C(2011) 9380 of 20 December 2011?

(1) Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1997 L 15, p. 14).

(2) Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services (OJ 2002 L 176, p. 21).

(3) Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services (OJ 2008 L 52, p. 3).
2.

In the latter case, do Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/13/EC and Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/54/EC, (2) together with Annex III to the latter directive, read in the light of the equivalence established between sodium and salt in the annex to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, infringe the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of the Treaty on the European Union, read with Article 11(1) (freedom of expression and information) and Article 16 (freedom to conduct a business) of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union, and Article 19 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, by prohibiting a distributor of mineral water from placing on his labels and advertising material any indication as to the low salt content or sodium chloride content, which could be that of his product that is high in sodium bicarbonate, inasmuch as that indication would be likely to mislead the purchaser in regard to the total sodium content of the water?’
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 12 May 2014 — SIA ‘Ostas celtnieks’ v Talsu novada pašvaldība, Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs

(Case C-234/14)

2014/C 212/24

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA ‘Ostas celtnieks’

Defendants: Talsu novada pašvaldība, Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs

Question referred

Must the provisions of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts be interpreted as meaning that, in order to reduce the risk of non-performance of the contract, they do not preclude the specifications from containing the condition that, in the event of the contract being awarded to a tenderer which relies on the capacities of other contractors, that tenderer must, before the contract is awarded, conclude with those undertakings a cooperation agreement (which includes the particular items set out in the specifications), or set up a partnership with them?

(1) OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114
1)

Should the fact that the scope of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) and of Article 14(5)(b) of the implementing Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (2) covers ‘a person who normally pursues an activity as an employed person in two or more Member States’ be interpreted as meaning that it also covers the situation where a person is employed, under an employment contract with only one employer who is established in a Member State of the European Union, with a view to working in two other Member States even if: i. the second Member State in which the person is to be employed has not yet been determined and is not foreseeable when an application is made for the issue of the A1 form [statement of applicable legislation] due to the specific nature of the work, i.e. the temporary employment of workers for short periods of time in various Member States? or ii. the duration of employment in the first and/or second Member State cannot yet be determined or is unforeseeable due to the specific nature of the work, i.e. the temporary employment of workers for short periods of time in various Member States?
—

Declare that, in relation to Directive 2009/72/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing 2003/54/EC, Ireland has failed to adopt by 3 March 2011 at the latest provisions transposing the definitions of points 8, 18, 21, 22, 32, 33 and 34 of its Article 2 and the requirements laid down in paragraphs (1) to (7) and (12) of its Article 9 in conjunction with paragraph (11) of Article 9, in the second and third sentences of its Article 16 as well as paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 16, in the second sentence of its Article 38(1), in paragraphs (1), (4) and (8) of its Article 39, and in paragraphs (1) to (3), (5) and (7) of its Article 40 or, in any event, has failed to notify the Commission of any such measures, such that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of that Directive;
ii.

Is either clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement or Article 7 of the Working Time Directive (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law (such as Regulations 13, 13A and 14 of the Working Time Regulations), from having the effect that in circumstances where there is an increase in the working hours of an employee, the amount of leave already accumulated is to be adjusted proportionally to the new working hours, with the result that the worker who increases his/her working hours has his/her entitlement to accrued leave recalculated in accordance with the revised hours?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/2

Appeal brought on 13 January 2014 by Associazione sportiva Taranto calcio Srl against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2013 in Case T-476/13 Associazione sportiva Taranto calcio Srl v Italian Republic

(Case C-11/14 P)

2014/C 245/02

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Associazione sportiva Taranto calcio Srl (represented by: N. Russo, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: Italian Republic

By order of 30 April 2014, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.
3.

Must Article 6 and Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 (3)‘on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, of the one part, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, of the other part, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963’ be interpreted as meaning that the terms ‘any paid employment of his choice’, ‘any paid employment of their choice’ and ‘any offer of employment’ also cover all positions in the public service, or do the restrictions referred to in Article 45(4) TFEU and Article 28(4) of the EEA Agreement or the restrictions referred to in Article 11 of Directive 2003/109/EC apply by analogy to the application of those provisions?
1)

Are the provisions of Council Directive 80/987/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that seamen of a Member State who provided maritime labour on a vessel flying the flag of a country which is not a member of the European Union, as regards their outstanding claims against the ship-owning company — which had its registered office in the territory of the non-member country though its real seat was in the Member State concerned, and which was declared insolvent by a court of that Member State according to the law of that Member State, for the precise reason that that was where its real seat was — were subject to the protective provisions of the above Directive, in view of the purpose of the Directive and irrespective of the fact that the relevant employment contracts were governed by the law of the non-member country and that the Member State is unable to claim a contribution from the ship-owning company, which is not subject to the domestic legal order, towards the financing of the guarantee institution?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici (Croatia) lodged on 26 May 2014 — VG Vodoopskrba d.o.o. za vodoopskrbu i odvodnju v Đuro Vladika

(Case C-254/14)

2014/C 253/25

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VG Vodoopskrba d.o.o. za vodoopskrbu i odvodnju

Defendant: Đuro Vladika

Question referred

What are the principles on the basis of which, under EU law, consumers pay for water? That is to say, are consumers required to pay only for the water which they have consumed, as evidenced by the meter reading, at the price of the water alone, or must they pay a price for the water which will reimburse the costs relating to the activity carried out by the municipal operators (operations, on-going maintenance, management of the infrastructure, employees’ salaries, etc.)?
3.

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?
3)

If the answer to the first question is to the effect that financial corrections are administrative penalties, then in circumstances in which financial corrections have been applied to co-financed expenditure under Structural Funds for failure to comply with rules on public contracts, does Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2988/1995 in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 98(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, prevent a Member State from applying financial corrections governed by an internal legislative measure which entered into force at a time after that at which it is maintained that the alleged infringement of the rules on public contracts took place?
1.

Is Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European order for payment procedure (‘Regulation No 1896/2006’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment in accordance with Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006 also where the order for payment was effectively served on him but was issued by a court which lacks jurisdiction on the basis of the information relating to jurisdiction provided in the application form?
1.

Do points (b) and (c) of Article 13(A)(1) of the Sixth VAT directive (1) mean that the transportation of samples and organs, for the purposes of medical analysis or medical or therapeutic care, by a third party who is self-employed and whose services are covered by the reimbursement made by the social security system to clinics and laboratories, are not exempt from VAT as services closely related to medical services, namely, as services intended to diagnose, treat and, in so far as is possible, cure diseases or health disorders?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/36

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2014 — CM Eurologistik GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

(Case C-283/14)

2014/C 315/58

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CM Eurologistik GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Question referred

Must Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 158/2013 of 18 February 2013 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) be regarded as valid?

(1) OJ 2013 L 49, p. 29.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 6 June 2014 — SC Enterprise Focused Solutions SRL v Spitalul Județean de Urgență Alba Iulia

(Case C-278/14)

2014/C 303/22

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SC Enterprise Focused Solutions SRL

Respondent: Spitalul Județean de Urgență Alba Iulia

Question referred

May Article 23(8) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that, when a contracting authority defines the technical specifications of the product which is the subject of a procurement contract by reference to a particular brand, the characteristics of the ‘equivalent’ product offered must be established solely by reference to the technical specifications of products still in production, or may they be established by reference to products which are on the market but no longer in production?

(1) Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).
4.

If, in order to discover the nature of the agreement and to ascertain that the elements of a prohibited agreement are present, it is necessary to determine whether the agreement could possibly affect the market, can such potential effects on the market at the same time form a sufficient basis for finding that the agreement corresponds to the definition of a prohibited agreement, without any need for it to be determined whether that agreement actually produced any adverse effects?