ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Infringement of Article 15 of the Directive: Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/98 requires Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that any original waste producer or other holder carries out the treatment of waste himself or has the treatment handled by a dealer or an establishment or an undertaking which carries out waste treatment operations or arranged by a private or public waste collector, in accordance with Articles 4 and 13 of that directive. The continuation of 61 illegal landfill sites that remain unsealed and unregenerated allows the Commission to find that the Spanish authorities have not taken all the necessary measures required by that provision, in so far as over a prolonged period those authorities did not prevent illegal dumping of waste in those landfill sites and, therefore, did not ensure that that waste was treated in accordance with those provisions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 October 2015 — Policie ČR v Salah Al Chodor and Others

(Case C-528/15)

(2016/C 016/20)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Policie České republiky, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie

Other parties: Salah Al Chodor, Ajlin Al Chodor, Ajvar Al Chodor

Question referred

Does the sole fact that a law has not defined objective criteria for assessment of a significant risk that a foreign national may abscond (Article 2(n) of Regulation No 604/2013 (1)) render detention under Article 28(2) of that regulation inapplicable?

(1) OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/25

Appeal brought on 19 November 2015 by Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-92/13: Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v European Commission

(Case C-622/15 P)

(2016/C 027/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk, J. K. de Pree, S. Molin, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-92/13;

— annul in whole or in part, Articles 1.1(c) and 1.2(f), Articles 2.1(c) and 2.1(e), and Articles 2.2(c) and 2.2(e) of the Commission Decision of 5 December 2012 in Case COMP/39437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes (the ‘Decision’), insofar as they concern KPNV; and/or reduce the fines imposed on KPNV in Articles 2.1(c) and 2.1(e) and Articles 2.2(c) and 2.2(e) of the Decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs in first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following main pleas and arguments:

The General Court erred in law in the application of Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of Regulation No. 1/2003 (1) by holding that the Commission could characterize the sales of Cathode Ray Tubes (‘CRTs’) made by the LPD Group to the Philips Group (and the LGE Group) as intragroup sales and by holding that the Commission was entitled to include the value of Direct EEA Sales through Transformed Products (‘DSTP’) in the calculation of KPNV's fine, where it concerned downstream sales of computer screens and colour televisions by subsidiaries of KPNV incorporating CRTs supplied by the LPD Group.

The General Court erred in law by holding that the Commission did not violate KPNV's rights of defence when it chose — even in the circumstances of this case — not to include the LPD Group in the administrative proceedings and issue a statement of objections to it on the ground that KPNV would have a general duty of care to keep records in its books and files regarding the activities of the LPD Group, even in case of the bankruptcy of LPD.

The General Court committed an error of assessment in that it misrepresented the plea raised by KPNV regarding the treatment of DSTP and thereby failed to address one of the main grounds of appeal of KPNV against the Decision. The appellant further submits it was deprived of the protection of the fundamental principle of equal treatment in that the General Court failed to recognize that different legal standards were applied to different undertakings in determining the basis for the calculation of the fine. This discriminatory treatment resulted in a significantly higher fine for KPNV.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty

OJ L 1, p. 1.
2)

Does it make any difference — whether the copyright-protected works as a whole have not previously been published on the internet or have only been published through subscriptions with the authorisation of the right holder? — whether the add-ons containing hyperlinks to websites on which copyright-protected works are made directly accessible without the authorisation of the right holders are freely available and can also be installed in the mediaplayer by the users themselves? — whether the websites and thus the copyright-protected works made accessible thereon — without the authorisation of the right holders — can also be accessed by the public without the mediaplayer?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/26

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 5 November 2015 — X, Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-570/15)

(2016/C 038/38)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

What standard or standards should be used to assess what legislation is designated by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) as applicable in the case of a worker residing in Belgium who performs the bulk of his work for his Dutch employer in the Netherlands, and in addition performs 6,5 per cent of that work in Belgium in the year in question, at home and with clients, without there being a fixed pattern and without any agreement having been made with his employer with regard to the performance of work in Belgium?

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).
1)

Must Article 21(2) of Regulation No 469/2009 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (codified version) be interpreted as shortening the duration of a supplementary protection certificate issued in a Member State which was issued under national law before the accession of the State in question to the European Union and whose duration in relation to an active substance, as stated in the supplementary protection certificate, would be longer than 15 years from the time when the first marketing authorisation in the Union was granted for a medicinal product consisting of the active substance or containing it?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/7

Appeal brought on 14 April 2015 by Sun Mark Ltd and Bulldog Energy Drink Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2015 in Case T-78/13: Red Bull v OHIM

(Case C-206/15 P)

(2016/C 048/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Sun Mark Ltd and Bulldog Energy Drink Ltd (represented by: A. Meskarian, Solicitor, S. Zaiwalla, Solicitor, T. Sampson, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

By order of 24 November 2015 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal is inadmissible.
5.

Is proportionality to be determined on the facts of the individual case? In particular, is the restriction created by such a charge to tax proportionate in circumstances where: (a) the legislation makes no provision for an option to defer the payment of tax or for payment in instalments, or for account to be taken of any subsequent fall in the value of the trust assets after the exit, (b) but in the particular circumstances of the assessment to tax under appeal, the assets were sold before the tax was payable and the relevant assets did not decrease in value between the relocation of the trust and the date of sale.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Électricité Réseau Distribution France SA (ERDF) v Axa Corporate Solutions SA and Ombrière Le Bosc SAS

(Case C-669/15)

(2016/C 078/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Électricité Réseau Distribution France SA (ERDF)

Respondents: Axa Corporate Solutions SA and Ombrière Le Bosc SAS

Question referred

Are the Orders of 10 July 2006 and 12 January 2010, adopted pursuant to Decree 2000-1196 of 6 December 2000 and Decree 2001-410 of 10 May 2001, which were themselves adopted pursuant to Law 2000-108 of 10 February 2000, contrary to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty establishing the European Community) in so far as they may constitute State aid which, since it was not notified to the Commission beforehand in accordance with Article 108(3) of that Treaty, would affect the legality of those orders?
(a)

Should Article 145(2) of the Regulation implementing the Community Customs Code (CCIP), (1) read in conjunction with Article 29(1) and (3) of the Community Customs Code (CCC), (2) be interpreted as meaning that the rule laid down therein also applies in a case where it is established that, at the time of acceptance of the declaration for specific goods, there was a manufacture-related risk that a component of the goods might become defective during use, and in view of this the seller, pursuant to a contractual warranty towards the buyer, grants the latter a price reduction in the form of reimbursement of the costs incurred by the buyer in modifying the goods in order to exclude that risk?
1.

Is a provision of national law concerning the exemption from VAT of independent groups of persons which does not lay down any criteria or procedures governing the fulfilment of the condition of distortion of competition compatible with Article 132(1)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) in conjunction with Article 131 of the VAT Directive, and also with the principles of effectiveness, of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations?
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative: Is the second indent of Article 202(3) of the CC to be interpreted as meaning that a) a legal person participates in an unlawful introduction (even) if one of its employees, who is not its statutory representative, was involved in that introduction while acting within the scope of his responsibility, and b) in the case of legal persons who participate in an unlawful introduction, the subjective element that they ‘were aware or should reasonably have been aware’ is to be determined by reference to the natural person in the legal person’s undertaking to whom the matter is entrusted, even if he is not the statutory representative of the legal person?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 191/3

Appeal brought on 7 December 2015 by Mr Carsten Bopp against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 September 2015 in Case T-209/14 Carsten Bopp v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-653/15 P)

(2016/C 191/06)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Carsten Bopp (represented by: C. Russ, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 7 April 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and decided that the appellant must bear his own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG v BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH

(Case C-662/15)

(2016/C 118/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant and respondent: BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH

Question referred

Are Article 1(2)(f), Article 11, point 13 of Annex I and the last indent of point 3 of Annex VII [to Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a further conformity assessment procedure is required for the marketing of a Class I medical device, which has been made subject to a conformity assessment procedure by the manufacturer and lawfully bears the CE marking affixed by the manufacturer, where the information relating to the central pharmaceutical number (Pharmazentralnummer) on the outer packaging of the medical device has been concealed by a sticker which provides the importer’s details and the central pharmaceutical number granted to that importer, the other information remaining visible?

(1) OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 326/6

Appeal brought on 23 July 2015 by Harper Hygienics S.A. against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 13 May 2015 in Case T-364/12, Harper Hygienics v European Union Intellectual Property Office — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC Kindii)

(Case C-475/15 P)

(2016/C 326/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Harper Hygienics S.A. (represented by: D. Rzążewska, radca prawny)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Clinique Laboratories, LLC

By order of the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016, the appeal was declared inadmissible in part and was dismissed as to the remainder.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/14

Appeal brought on 17 August 2015 by Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2015 in Case T-396/14: Best-Lock (Europe) v EUIPO

(Case C-452/15 P)

(2016/C 270/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd (represented by: J. Becker, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 14 April 2016 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
1.

Does the UK’s different treatment of output tax Fleming claims (which could be made for periods ending before 4 December 1996) and input tax Fleming claims (which could be made for periods ending before 1 May 1997 — i.e. later than output tax Fleming claims) result in: a) a breach of the EU law principle of equal treatment; and/or b) a breach of the EU law principle of fiscal neutrality; and/or c) a breach of the EU law principle of effectiveness; and/or d) a breach of any other relevant EU law principle?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 12 January 2016 — Oussama El Dakkak, Intercontinental SARL v Administration des douanes et des droits indirects

(Case C-17/16)

(2016/C 090/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Oussama El Dakkak, Intercontinental SARL

Respondent: Administration des douanes et des droits indirects

Question referred

Must Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of 26 October 2005 (1) and Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of 15 March 2006 (2) be interpreted as meaning that a national of a third State who is in the international transit area of an airport is not subject to the obligation to make a declaration under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of 26 October 2005, or, on the contrary, must those provisions be interpreted as meaning that that national is subject to that obligation by virtue of having crossed an external border of the Community at one of the border crossing points referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of 15 March 2006?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 9).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 4 January 2016 — Criminal proceedings against J. S. R.

(Case C-2/16)

(2016/C 118/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Stuttgart

Party to the main proceedings

J. S. R.

Question referred

Is the inclusion of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (‘the LTTE’) in the list pursuant to Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (1) for the period of time from 23 July 2007 to 11 March 2009, in particular on the basis of Council Decisions of

— 29 March 2006 (2006/379/EC), (2)

— 28 June 2007 (2007/445/EC), (3)

— 20 December 2007 (2007/868/EC in the version of the correction from the same day published in the Official Journal of the European Union L 340 of 22 December 2007), (4)

— 15 July 2008 (2008/583/EC) (5) and

— 26 January 2009 (2009/62/EC) (6) invalid?

(1) OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70.

(2) Council Decision of 29 May 2006 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2005/930/EC (OJ 2006 L 144, p. 21).

(3) Council Decision of 28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC (OJ 2007 L 169, p. 58).

(4) Council Decision of 20 December 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/445/EC (OJ 2007 L 340, p. 100), as corrected.

(5) Council Decision of 15 July 2008 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC (OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21).

(6) Council Decision of 26 January 2009 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2008/583/EC (OJ 2009 L 23, p. 25).
1.

Do Articles 49, 56 or 63 TFEU preclude legislation, such as Part 8ZA of the Corporation Tax Act 2010, which governs the relief for expenditure available in relation to the UK taxable profits of a company providing drilling services to the oil industry (an ‘oil contractor’) from activities (the ‘affected trade’) involving the use of certain types of assets (‘relevant assets’) leased from a person ‘associated’ with the oil contractor, that: 1.1. for the purposes of computing the profits of the affected trade, imposes a pre-determined cap on the deductibility of payments for leasing relevant assets from associated persons, calculated by reference to the original cost of the leased asset; 1.2. states that the amount of payments that have been so disallowed by the cap may be relieved against UK taxable profits (if any) of the oil contractor or other companies within the same group, which do not arise from an affected trade; and 1.3. ring-fences profits from the affected trade by preventing UK incurred costs or both UK and non-UK losses from elsewhere in the oil contractor's group from being set off against the profits of the affected trade, but permits them to be set against other profits (if any)?
1.

Must Articles 131 and 138(1) of Directive 2006/112 (1) be interpreted, in respect of an intra-Community supply of goods, as precluding the tax authority of a Member State from refusing to grant VAT exemption to a seller domiciled in that Member State on the ground that the purchaser, domiciled in another Member State, is not registered in the VIES (2) database nor is subject in that country to a system of taxation on intra-Community acquisitions of goods, although he has, at the time of the transactions, a valid identification number for the purposes of VAT in that other Member State, which has been used in the transaction invoices, and the cumulative material conditions for an intra-Community supply have been fulfilled, namely, that the right to dispose of the goods as owner has been transferred to the purchaser and the seller has established that these goods were dispatched or transported to another Member State and that, after that dispatch or transport, those goods physically left the Member State of departure and were delivered to a taxable purchaser or legal person acting as such in a Member State other than that in which dispatch or transport of the goods began?
2.

Is that business practice of purchasing a consumer’s debt for a negligible price without his consent or knowledge, without including that practice as a general condition or unfair term imposed in the agreement, and without giving the consumer the opportunity to participate in that operation by purchasing and thus extinguishing the debt, compatible with the principles laid down in Directive 93/13/EEC (2) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and, by extension, with the principle of effectiveness and with Articles 3(1) and 7(1) of that directive?
1.

What are the essential characteristics which an activity must exhibit in order for it to be a ‘sport’ within the meaning of article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28th November 2006 (‘the Principal VAT Directive’)? In particular must an activity have a significant (or not insignificant) physical element which is material to its outcome or is it sufficient that it has a significant mental element which is material to its outcome?