ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Does the question whether the creation of a special-purpose association and the related transfer of duties to that association exceptionally does not come within the scope of European Union public procurement law depend on the principles which the Court of Justice has developed with regard to contracts concluded by a public entity with a person legally distinct from that entity — principles in accordance with which an application of European Union public procurement law is excluded — in the case where, at the same time, that entity exercises over the person concerned a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and where that person carries out the essential part of its activities with the entity or with the entities which control it (see, to that effect, inter alia, judgment in Teckal, C-107/98, (3) paragraph 50), or, by contrast, do the principles which the Court of Justice has developed concerning contracts which establish cooperation between public entities with the aim of ensuring that a public task that they all have to perform is carried out apply (in that respect, judgment in Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lecce and Others, C-159/11, (4) paragraphs 34 and 35)?
1.

Must Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national rules under which: (a) companies established in another Member State and having a Belgian permanent establishment are subject to a tax if they decide to distribute profits which are not included in the final taxable profits of the company, irrespective of whether profits have flowed from the Belgian permanent establishment to the main establishment, whereas companies established in another Member State and having a Belgian subsidiary are not subject to such a tax if they decide to distribute profits which are not included in the final taxable profits of the company, irrespective of whether or not the subsidiary has distributed a dividend; (b) companies established in another Member State and having a Belgian permanent establishment are, if they retain the Belgian profits in full, subject to a tax if they decide to distribute profits which are not included in the final taxable profits of the company, whereas Belgian companies are not subject to such a tax if they retain their profits in full?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 18 February 2015 — Dumitru Tarcău, Ileana Tarcău v Banca Comercială Intesa Sanpaolo România SA — Sucursala Baia Mare and Others

(Case C-74/15)

(2015/C 171/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Dumitru Tarcău, Ileana Tarcău

Respondents: Banca Comercială Intesa Sanpaolo România SA — Sucursala Baia Mare, Banca Comercială Intesa Sanpaolo România SA Arad, Cristian Nicolae Tarcău, Corina Tarcău, SC Magenta, in the person of the liquidator, Pareto Grup IPURL, SC Crisco SRL, in the person of the special administrator, CII Renata Moldovan, SC Crisco SRL, in the person of the special administrator, Cristian Tarcău

Questions referred

1. Must Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1), as regards the definition of ‘consumer’, be interpreted as including in or, conversely, as excluding from, that definition natural persons who have, as guarantors/sureties, concluded additional acts and contracts (guarantee contracts, contracts providing immovable property as security) ancillary to the credit agreement entered into by a commercial company in order to carry on its activity, in circumstances in which those natural persons have no connection with the activities of the commercial company and have acted for purposes outside their trade, business or profession.

2. Must Article 1(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning that only contracts concluded between traders and consumers concerning the sale of goods or supply of services fall within the ambit of that directive or as meaning that contracts (contracts of guarantee and of surety) ancillary to a credit agreement, the beneficiary of which is a commercial company, concluded by natural persons who have no connection with the activities of that commercial company and who acted for purposes outside their trade, business or profession also fall within the ambit of that directive?

(1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
—

Does the second sentence of Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 permit, for the transitional period of 2007, the imposition of meat inspection fees to cover costs under the previous legal provisions (Directive 85/73/EEC in the version of Directive 96/43/EC)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/22

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 26 March 2015 — J.H. Dees-Erf, other parties: Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu, Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

(Case C-146/15)

(2015/C 198/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J.H. Dees-Erf

Other parties: Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu, Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

Question referred

Given that Netherlands law provides access to the civil courts to protect the rights which passengers may derive under EU law from Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1), does Article 16 of that Regulation oblige the national authorities to take implementing measures which form the basis for administrative enforcement action through the bodies designated under Article 16 separately in each individual case in which Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7 of the Regulation are infringed, in order to be able to guarantee a passenger’s right to compensation separately in each individual case?
The order under appeal is in error in that the General Court for the making of the order failed to examine the legal and actual association of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup and also failed to examine the fact that, on the basis of the principle of legal causation and the true author test, the acts of the Eurogroup constituted acts of the European Central Bank and the European Commission, which ought to have acted in a way compatible with the Treaty and the Protocols of the European Union and on the basis of secondary and derivative law

In consequence, the General Court failed to examine the substance of the appellants’ arguments and case, and thus erred in dismissing the action for annulment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/20

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-500/12: Ryanair Ltd. v European Commission

(Case C-165/15 P)

(2015/C 205/28)

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: Ryanair Ltd., Ireland, Aer Lingus Ltd.

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-500/12 Ryanair 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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/26

Action brought on 16 April 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-172/15)

(2015/C 198/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae and J. Rius, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Forms of order sought

— To declare, pursuant to Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that having not yet approved all of the assessments and port security plans for all Spanish ports included in the scope of European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/65/EC (1) of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(3) and Articles 6 and 7 of that directive, that provide respectively, that Member States are to define the boundaries of each port, and are to approve relevant port security assessments and plans;

— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 5 September 2014, the Kingdom of Spain acknowledged that, out of the 67 ports affected by the legislation in question, 3 port security assessments and 18 port security plans were still awaiting approval.

From that date until the present, the Spanish authorities have continued to send updates regularly on the progress of the practical implementation of Directive 2005/65/EC. The latest of such reports, received on 14 April 2015, shows that, out of the 67 ports affected by the legislation in question, one assessment and eight port security plans are still awaiting approval.

Consequently, the Commission notes that on the date of the latest report received, the Kingdom of Spain had failed to fulfil its obligations to define the relevant boundaries of each port affected by Directive 2005/65/EC, or its obligations to establish and approve a security assessment for all the ports to which Directive 2005/65/EC applies, and establish and approve port security plans for these ports.

(1) OJ L 310, p. 28.
4.

Regardless of the answers to the previous questions: 4.1. Must a term included in general terms and conditions specifying that a contract concluded in the course of electronic commerce between a consumer and a trader established in another Member State shall be governed by the law of the country in which that trader is established be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (3)? 4.2. Is the processing of personal data by an undertaking that in the course of electronic commerce concludes contracts with consumers resident in other Member States, in accordance with Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (4), and regardless of the law that otherwise applies, governed exclusively by the law of the Member State in which the establishment of the undertaking is situated in whose framework the processing takes place or must the undertaking also comply with the data protection rules of those Member States to which its commercial activities are directed?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Deutschland) lodged on 12 March 2015 — Max-Heinz Feilen v Finanzamt Fulda

(Case C-123/15)

(2015/C 213/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Max-Heinz Feilen

Defendant: Finanzamt Fulda

Question referred

Does the free movement of capital under Article 63(1) in conjunction with Article 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude legislation of a Member State which provides for a reduction in inheritance tax in the case of an inheritance by persons in a particular tax class where the estate includes assets that were already acquired by persons in this tax class during the ten years prior to the acquisition and inheritance tax was assessed in the Member State in respect of this previous acquisition, whereas a tax reduction is excluded where inheritance tax was levied in another Member State in respect of the previous acquisition?
1.

By its first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in its assessment of the Commission’s margin of discretion. The determination of the value of aid in the form of guarantees is an economically complex issue, for the purposes of which the Commission is granted a margin of discretion. The Commission exercised that margin of discretion in accordance with its long established practice so as to calculate the value of aid in the form of guarantees from German Federal States in accordance with the detailed rules of the German authorities at 0,5 % of the guarantee value. The subsequent publication of the 2000 Guarantee Notice could in no way alter that finding.
2.

If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative for all or some civil servants, is Article 45 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of other national provisions, the earlier appointing body of the civil servant in question has to pay the civil servant either the amount of retirement pension on the basis of the period of pensionable service in the earlier civil service post, reduced by the amount of pension rights arising from the retrospective insurance, or to compensate him financially in some other way for the loss of the retirement pension, although under national law only the civil servant benefits provided for by that law may be granted?
1.

Does Article 15(1) of Directive 2011/64/EU (1), whether or not read in conjunction with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) of 7 December 2000, preclude a national measure which requires retailers to respect minimum prices by prohibiting the application of a price for tobacco products which is lower than the price that the manufacturer/importer has affixed to the revenue stamp?
2.

In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: Does the first sentence of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark preclude a national legal practice in accordance with which the licensee can enforce the trade mark proprietor’s rights against the infringer by virtue of the power conferred on it for that purpose (Prozessstandschaft)?
2.

If the first question is to be answered in the negative, is Article 67(3) of Regulation No 1408/71 compatible with, in particular: — Article 48 TFEU, in so far as the condition to which Article 67(3) makes the aggregation of periods of employment subject is likely to restrict the freedom of movement of workers and their access to certain part-time employment, — Article 45 TFEU, which entails ‘the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment’ and provides for the right for workers ‘to accept offers of employment actually made’ (including part-time employment) in other Member States, ‘to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose’ and to stay there ‘for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action’, — Article 15(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which states that ‘every citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment, to work, (...) in any Member State’?
Case C-236/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Dinu Antoci v Instituția Prefectului — Județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Dinu Antoci v Instituția Prefectului — Județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

(Case C-236/15)

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanţa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Dinu Antoci

Respondent: Instituția Prefectului — Județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

Question referred

Does Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude the creation, under Article 4(a) of Decree-Law No 9/2013, of an obligation to pay an environmental stamp duty in respect of second-hand motor vehicles originating in the European Union when the acquisition of ownership of a motor vehicle is registered with the competent authorities under Romanian law by its first owner in Romania and a registration certificate and registration number are issued?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/32

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2015 — Medical Imaging Systems GmbH (MIS) v Hauptzollamt München

(Case C-288/15)

(2015/C 294/39)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Medical Imaging Systems GmbH (MIS)

Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

Question referred

Does classification under subheading 6211 33 10 00 0 ‘Industrial and occupational clothing’ of the Combined Nomenclature (1) depend solely on external appearance or intended use, or does General Rule 3(b) require that consideration be given to those components of the goods which give them their essential character?

(1) 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), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012 amending Annex I (OJ 2012 L 304, p. 1).
4.

Could the Court confirm that the question whether the rule of the authority of res judicata must be set aside in the event of a judicial decision which has become res judicata but is contrary to [EU] law in the context of an application for review or setting aside of that decision is not a question materially identical, within the meaning of the judgments [DaCosta and Others (28/62 to 30/62, EU:C:1963:6) and Cilfit and Others (283/81, EU:C:1982:335)], to the question whether the rule of the authority of res judicata is contrary to [EU] law in the context of an application for a (new) decision which would repeat the infringement of [EU] law, so that the court giving judgment at last instance cannot escape its obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/28

Appeal brought on 10 June 2015 by Alexandre Borde and Carbonium against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-314/14: Borde and Carbonium v Commission

(Case C-279/15 P)

(2015/C 294/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Alexandre Borde and Carbonium SAS (represented by: A.B.H. Herzberg, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Set aside the order of the General Court of 25 March 2015, whereby it: a. dismisses the applications as inadmissible; and b. orders the Applicants to bear their own costs and the costs incurred by the Commission.

— Declare admissible the Appellants’ application for annulment; and a.) Give final judgment in the matter; or, alternatively b) Refer the case back to the General Court for judgment on the merits;

— Alternatively: refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the issue of admissibility joined to the merits, and for judgment accordingly;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs pursuant to Article 184, first paragraph of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants submit that the dismissal of their action for annulment was unlawful because (i) the General Court provided an inaccurate and distorted statement of facts, thus disregarding the Appellants’ right to be heard; (ii) in applying Article 263(4) TFEU, the General Court incorrectly narrowed down challengeable acts to acts under Article 288 TFEU; (iii) the General Court erred in finding that the contested measures are not decisions under Article 288(4) TFEU; (iv) in applying Article 263(4) TFEU, the General Court incorrectly considered decisive whether or not the challenged act is ‘separable from the contractual framework’ and failed to take into account other relevant factors; (v) in applying Article 263(4) TFEU, the General Court incorrectly applied criteria developed for bipolar cases to a tripolar case; (vi) the General Court failed to consider the Appellants’ right to an effective judicial remedy as protected under the European Convention for Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Is the third subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/35 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in a system in which, for the purposes of engaging in an economic activity, a natural person is granted authorisation stating the activity for which authorisation is granted, there is no undertaking, nor, therefore, any commercial transaction within the meaning of the above-mentioned provision of the Directive, when the legal transaction giving rise to late payment relates to an activity not covered by the authorisation?

If the reply to the above question is in the negative:
1.

Must Articles 43 and 44 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1) of 29 September 2003 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes from treatment as eligible hectares all areas of permanent pasture declared by a farmer in excess of those taken into account at the relevant time for the purpose of determining the normal entitlements due to that farmer, making the inclusion of those areas, and therefore the replacement of arable land with pasture, conditional on the pasture being genuinely given over to the rearing of livestock in the specific financial year in respect of which the farmer seeks to activate the payment entitlements? And, should that question be answered in the negative,