ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Must Clause 8(2) of the ‘revised Framework Agreement on Parental Leave’ (Directive 2010/18), and, more specifically, the provision in accordance with which ‘[i]mplementation of the provisions of this agreement shall not constitute valid grounds for reducing the general level of protection afforded to workers in the field covered by this agreement’, be interpreted as meaning that, should a Member State fail to implement Directive 2010/18 expressly, the scope of the protection which that State itself defined in transposing the earlier Directive 96/34 (2) may not be reduced? Only if the answer to either of those two questions is in the affirmative, Directive 2010/18 being considered applicable to an ‘associative-work’ relationship such as that of the applicant, will the other questions which follow be justified, for the reasons set out below.
2)

Must Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 11(1) and Article 12(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as permitting citizens of the Union to be required to observe provisions of the national law of the Member States, such as the mandatory rules laid down in Article 12(1), together with the penalty provided for in Article 26(1)(a), of Law No 60/1991 of Romania on the organisation and the conduct of public meetings?
1.

Can EU law, specifically Article 34 TFEU, Article 31(1) of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (1) and Article 1(1)(t) and (u) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 (2) be interpreted as precluding a rule of national law such as that referred to in Article 1(2), of OG (Ordonanţa Guvernului; Government Decree) No 80/2000, in so far as it puts in place a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports, given that, in accordance with that rule, for the free movement (sale, distribution) of new products and consumable materials, included in the category of those relating to the safety of road traffic, the protection of the environment, energy efficiency and the protection against thefts of road vehicles, either an approval certificate or a certification for release for free circulation and/or marketing released by the manufacturer must be presented by the seller/distributor/dealer, or, where the seller/distributor/dealer had not obtained or was not in possession of such a certificate or certification, the certification procedure for products in question must be completed with the Registrul Auto Român (Romanian Automobile Register; ‘RAR’) and an approval certificate for release for free circulation and/or marketing released by the RAR must be obtained, and given that, even where the seller/distributor/dealer is in possession of a certificate of conformity for release for free circulation and/or marketing of parts made available by the distributor of a European Union Member State, which distributes freely such parts within the territory of that European Union Member State, such a certificate is not sufficient to allow for free movement/sale/distribution of the goods in question?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 388/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Klagenævnet for Udbud (Denmark) lodged on 20 August 2014 — MT Højgaard A/S and Züblin A/S v Banedanmark

(Case C-396/14)

2014/C 388/06

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Klagenævnet for Udbud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: MT Højgaard A/S and Züblin A/S

Defendant: Banedanmark

Question referred

Is the principle of equal treatment in Article 10, cf. Article 51 of Directive 2004/17/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as precluding, in situation such as the one at issue here, a contracting authority from awarding the contract to a tenderer which had not applied for pre-selection and therefore was not pre-selected?

(1) Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 372/2

Appeal brought on 31 March 2014 by Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2014 in Case T-47/13 Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Christin Vieweg

(Case C-150/14 P)

2014/C 372/02

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH (represented by: S. Biagosch, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Christin Vieweg

By order of 4 September 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
4.

What amount is represented by ‘the total amount of credit’ in accordance with Article 10(2)(d) of the Directive on Consumer Credit Agreements and what amounts are included as ‘the amounts of drawdown’ in the calculation of the annual percentage rate (APR) according to the formula set out in Annex I to the Directive on Consumer Credit Agreements, if the credit agreement formally promises the payment of a specific financial amount but at the same time it is agreed that, as soon as the credit is paid out, the claims of the credit supplier in terms of a fee for the provision of the credit and in terms of the first credit repayment instalment (or subsequent instalments) will to a certain extent be offset against that amount, so that the amounts thus offset are never in reality paid out to the consumer, or to his account, and remain at the creditor’s disposal throughout? Does the inclusion of those amounts which are in reality not paid out affect the amount of the APR calculated?
10.

In the situation analysed in the present case, must Articles 2(1)(c), 24(1), 43 and 273 of the VAT Directive, in conjunction with Articles 4(3) and 325 TFEU, be interpreted as meaning that, in the interests of the proper observance of the obligation of the Member States of the Union to collect the total amount of VAT effectively and punctually and prevent the loss to the public coffers entailed by tax evasion and avoidance across the borders of the Member States, in the case of a transaction for the supply of services and in order to identify the person supplying the service, the tax authority of the Member State, at the evidence-gathering stage of the administrative tax procedure and in order to clarify the facts, is entitled to admit data, information and evidence, and, therefore, records of intercepted communication, obtained without the knowledge of the taxable person by the investigating body of the tax authority in the context of a criminal procedure and to use them as a basis for its assessment of the tax implications, and that, for its part, the administrative court hearing the action brought against the administrative decision of the tax authority of the Member State is entitled to carry out an assessment of those matters as evidence, while examining the legality of that evidence?
Must the concept of ‘suspensive customs procedure’ in Article 4(6) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC be interpreted as meaning that it also covers the case of customs goods (excise goods) in external transit, in temporary storage or in customs storage under accompanying documents in which the tariff heading is incorrectly stated (CN 2401 10 35 instead of CN 2403 10 9000), but the relevant chapter (Chapter 24 — tobacco) and all the other data in those documents (container number, quantity, net weight) are correct and the seals are not broken?

(In other words, it must be determined whether particular products can be under a suspensive customs procedure when the Chapter of the Common Customs Code is indicated correctly in its accompanying documents but the specific tariff heading is incorrect?)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 23 September 2014 — Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff

(Case C-438/14)

(2014/C 462/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Karlsruhe

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff

Other parties: Standesamt der Stadt Karlsruhe, Zentraler Juristischer Dienst der Stadt Karlsruhe

Question referred

Are Articles 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that the authorities of a Member State are obliged to recognise the change of name of a national of that State if he is at the same time a national of another Member State and has acquired in that Member State, during habitual residence, by means of a change of name not associated with a change of family law status, a freely chosen name including several tokens of nobility, where it is possible that a future substantial link with that State does not exist and in the first Member State the nobility has been abolished by constitutional law but the titles of nobility used at the time of abolition may continue to be used as part of a name?
2)

In what manner, in what form and before which authority must the registration referred to in Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 take place? If the registration has to be effected through an authority, what formal and substantive criteria must that authority fulfil in the Member State in question?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/16

Action brought on 7 October 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-461/14)

(2014/C 462/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms y D. Loma-Osorio Lerena, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under (i) Article 3 of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) amended by Directives 97/11/EC (2) and 2003/35 (3) on the assessment of the environmental impact of certain public and private projects, (ii) Article 4(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC (4) on the conservation of wild birds — until 29 July 2008, the date of designation of the location in question as a special protection area for birds (SPA) — and (iii) Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EC (5) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, from the date of that designation;

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present case concerns the project for a new high-speed railway line between Seville and Almería, Sections ‘Marchena-Osuna I’, ‘Marchena-Osuna II’ and ‘Variante de Osuna’, and the possibility that the Spanish authorities have failed to apply correctly relevant provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, the Wild Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive. The Commission has reached that conclusion having particular regard to the potential effects of the works and the subsequent operation of Andalusia’s crossrail line where it passes through the ‘Campiñas de Sevilla’ special protection area for birds (SPA), taking the view that those effects have not been adequately addressed.

(1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).

(2) OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.

(3) Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17).

(4) Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2009 L 20, p. 7).

(5) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).
6)

Can Article 45(2)(g) of Directive 2004/18/EC, which states that any economic operator which is guilty of serious misrepresentation in supplying or not supplying information can be excluded from the procedure, be interpreted as excluding from the procedure an economic operator which submitted incorrect information which affected, or could affect, the result of the procedure, in that the guilt for misrepresentation lies in the very supply to the contracting authority of the factually inaccurate information which affects the decision of the contracting authority concerning exclusion of the economic operator (and rejection of its tender), regardless of whether the economic operator did so knowingly and wilfully, or unknowingly, through recklessness, negligence or failure to exercise due diligence? It is possible to regard as ‘guilty of serious misrepresentation in supplying the information required […] or not having supplied such information’ only an economic operator which has submitted incorrect (factually inaccurate) information, or also one which has submitted information which is correct, but has done so in such a way as to satisfy the contracting authority that it fulfils the requirements laid down by the contracting authority it, even though it does not?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 34/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 November 2014 — Freistaat Bayern v Verlag Esterbauer GmbH

(Case C-490/14)

(2015/C 034/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Freistaat Bayern

Defendant: Verlag Esterbauer GmbH

Question referred

In relation to the question whether a collection of independent materials exists within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 96/9/EC (1) because the materials can be separated from one another without the value of their informative content being affected, is every conceivable informative value decisive or only the value which is to be determined on the basis of the purpose of the collection and having regard to the resulting typical conduct of users?

(1) Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20.
1.

For the purposes of Article 19(1) and (3) (1), what does ‘established’ mean, in circumstances where:- a) the applicant, in the proceedings in the court first seised (‘the first proceedings’), takes virtually no steps in the first proceedings beyond the first court appointment, and in particular does not issue a Petition (Assignation) within the time limit for the expiry of the Request (Requête), with the result that the first proceedings expire undetermined by effluxion of time and in accordance with the local (French) law of the first proceedings, namely 30 months after the first directions appointment; b) the first proceedings expire as above very shortly (3 days) after the proceedings in the court second seised (‘the second proceedings’) are issued in England, with the result that there is no judgment in France nor any danger of irreconcilable judgments between the first proceedings and the second proceedings; and c) by virtue of the United Kingdom's time zone the applicant in the first proceedings would, following the lapse of the first proceedings, always be able to issue divorce proceedings in France before the applicant could issue divorce proceedings in England?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/17

Appeal brought on 23 May 2014 by ADR Center Srl against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 23 March 2014 in Case T-110/14: ADR Center Srl v European Commission

(Case C-259/14 P)

(2015/C 046/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ADR Center Srl (represented by: L. Tantalo, advocate, G. De Palo, advocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 4 December 2014 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
2.

The appellant further submits that, in its judgment of 26 September 2014 in Case T-615/11 Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus, the General Court erred in law in a manner detrimental to the appellant’s interests by: a) stating in paragraph 43, with reference to a lack of evidence, that the appellant had not demonstrated which effect the State aid would have on the appellant’s financial situation; b) concluding in paragraph 44 that the appellant accordingly had not demonstrated the State aid could cause significant harm to the appellant’s position on the relevant market and therefore could not be regarded as being individually concerned; c) finding in paragraph 42 that the appellant was not individually concerned by the contested decision, even though the appellant’s casino is part of a closed circle of land-based casinos; d) stating in paragraph 52 that the appellant’s action did not fulfil the conditions for admissibility set out in the last part of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU; and e) stating in paragraph 53 that the action should be dismissed on the ground that the appellant had no interest in bringing proceedings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 56/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 28 November 2014 — Envirotec Denmark ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-550/14)

(2015/C 056/11)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Envirotec Denmark ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Question referred

Are bars consisting of a random, rough fusion of various scrapped, gold-bearing metal objects covered by the terms ‘gold material or semi-manufactured products’ within the meaning of Article 198(2) of the VAT Directive (1)?

It can be taken as established that the bars consist of a random, rough fusion of various scrapped, gold-bearing metal objects and they can contain, in addition to gold, also organic materials, such as teeth, rubber, PVC and metals/materials such as copper, tin, nickel, amalgam, the remains of batteries containing mercury and lead, and various toxic substances, etc. There is thus no question of it being a gold-bearing product which is being processed directly into a finished product. On the other hand, the bar is a processed product (a fusion), which — as a form of intermediate stage — is created with a view to extracting the gold content. The bars have a high gold content, on average between 500 and 600 thousandths, and thus substantially over 325 thousandths gold. After extraction the gold content is to be used to manufacture (gold/gold-bearing) products.

In answering the question, it can also be taken as established that the bars cannot directly form part of other products, since first the bars must be subjected to processing in which the metals are separated and the non-metals and hazardous substances etc., are melted away/excreted.

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
5.

If Question 4 is answered in the negative: Are any principles concerning treatment in relation to conflict of laws to be inferred from European secondary law such as Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (5) or Directive 2011/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 concerning mergers of public limited liability companies or the Sixth Council Directive 82/891/EEC of 17 December 1982 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty concerning the division of public limited liability companies (6), in particular as to whether the national law of the State of the outwardly merging company or the national law of the target company is to be applied, or are national conflict-of-law rules free to decide to which substantive national law reference should be made?
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 27 November 2014 — Catherine Gimmig v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-544/14)

(2015/C 073/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Catherine Gimmig

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

This Case was removed from the Register of the Court by Order of the Court of 10 January 2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 13 November 2014 — P v M

(Case C-507/14)

(2015/C 065/27)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: P

Defendant: M

Question referred

‘Where a case concerning parental responsibility is brought in one Member State and another case, in which the same cause of action is at issue, has been brought at an earlier point in time in a different Member State and which has since been stayed at the request of the applicant in that case, without having been served on the relevant defendant and without the latter having been informed of its existence or having participated in that case in any way, and which was still stayed at the time the defendant in the earlier case brought the subsequent proceedings, can it be deemed, in the light of Article 16(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) of 27 November 2003 and for the purposes of Article 19(2) of that regulation, that the court before which the earlier proceedings were stayed was the first court to be seised?’

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 — (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).
4.

The Commission, applying the criteria which it set out in its Communication of 13/12/2005 (as updated on 17/09/2014) on the application of Article 260 TFEU, claims that the Court should declare that the Hellenic Republic, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court on 10 September 2009 in Case C-286/08 Commission v Greece, failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU, order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission a proposed penalty payment of EUR 72 864,00 for each day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case C-286/08, from the date of delivery of judgment in the present case until the date of full compliance with the judgment in Case C-286/08, order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission a daily lump sum of EUR 8 096,00 for each day from the date of delivery of the judgment in Case C-286/08 until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case, or until the date upon which the judgment in Case C-286/08 has been complied with, if earlier, and order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.