ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 18 October 2017 — Dirk Harms and Others v Vueling Airlines SA

(Case C-601/17)

(2018/C 022/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dirk Harms, Ann-Kathrin Harms, Nick-Julius Harms, Tom-Lukas Harms, Lilly-Karlotta Harms, Emma-Matilda Harms, the latter four represented by their parents Dirk Harms und Ann-Kathrin Harms

Defendant: Vueling Airlines SA

Question referred

Must the concept of ‘reimbursement … by the means provided for in Article 7(3), of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought’ in accordance with Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as referring to the amount paid by the passenger for the ticket in question, or is it the amount which the defendant air carrier has actually received, where an intermediary undertaking is involved in the booking process and collects the difference between what the passenger pays and what the air carrier receives without disclosing this?

(1) 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.
Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009

The General Court found the evidence of acquired distinctiveness insufficient and dismissed the action without giving any reasons as to why such proved and recognised distinctiveness was insufficient to allow registration of the trade mark applied for.

The General Court’s judgment is inadequately reasoned and contrary to the abovementioned provision, because the criteria that must be fulfilled in order for registration as a mark to be allowed are that the representation of the sign be clear, precise, self-sufficient, easily accessible, comprehensible, durable and objective.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/25

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Limoges (France) lodged on 30 October 2017 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v Roger Ducloux, Josée Ducloux, née Lecay

(Case C-618/17)

(2018/C 022/37)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance de Limoges

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA, successor in title to Solfea

Defendants: Roger Ducloux, Josée Ducloux, née Lecay

Question referred

Where the annual percentage rate of credit is 5,97377 %, does the rule provided for in Directives 98/7/EC of 16 February 1998 (1) and 2008/48/EC of 23 April 2008, (2) according to which, in the French version, ‘Le résultat du calcul est exprimé avec une exactitude d’au moins une décimale. Si le chiffre de la décimale suivante est supérieur ou égal à 5, le chiffre de la première décimale sera augmenté de 1’ [translated in literal terms as ‘[t]he result of the calculation shall be expressed correct to at least one decimal place; if the figure at the following decimal place is greater than or equal to 5, the figure at [the first] decimal place shall be increased by one’] allow a stated annual percentage rate of charge of 5,95 % to be considered correct?

(1) Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1998 L 101, p. 17).

(2) Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/17

Appeal brought on 19 September 2017 by Ukraine against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2017 in Case T-347/14 DEP: Yanukovych v Council

(Case C-550/17 P)

(2018/C 022/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ukraine (represented by: M. Kostytska, Advocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych, Council of the European Union, European Commission

By order of 23 November 2017 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative: Is the European Commission’s explanatory note to subheading 1902 3010 of the Combined Nomenclature, which was published on 4 March 2015, to be taken into consideration in the interpretation of subheading 1902 3010 of the CN in so far as frying is mentioned in that note as an example of an industrial drying process?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) lodged on 11 December 2017 — Pillar Securitisation Sàrl v Hildur Arnadottir

(Case C-694/17)

(2018/C 063/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pillar Securitisation Sàrl

Defendant: Hildur Arnadottir

Question referred

In the context of a credit agreement which, by reason of the total amount of the loan, does not come within the scope of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, (1) can a person be regarded as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Article 15 of the Lugano Convention of 30 October 2007 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in the absence of any national legislation applying the provisions of that directive to areas which do not come within its scope, on the ground that the contract was concluded for a purpose that can be regarded as a purpose other than that person’s professional activity?

(1) OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.
4.

In any event, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, is it contrary to the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and to the EU-law concept of an independent and impartial tribunal for a Giudice di Pace, who has an interest in the case before him being resolved in favour of the applicant who, as his sole form of employment performs identical judicial functions, to stand in the place of the tribunal established by statute as having jurisdiction because of the refusal by the highest domestic judicial body — the Combined Chambers of the Court of Cassation — to grant effective protection for the rights claimed, thus obliging the tribunal established as competent by statute to decline jurisdiction, when requested, for the purpose of recognising the right claimed, notwithstanding the fact that the right in question — like the right to paid leave at issue in the main proceedings — is enshrined in primary and secondary EU law in a situation in which ‘Community’ law is directly and vertically applicable to the Member State in question? In the event that the Court of Justice should find that there is an infringement of Article 47 of the Charter, what domestic remedies are available in order to avoid a situation in which infringement of a provision of primary EU law also involves an absolute refusal under domestic law to protect fundamental rights guaranteed by EU law in the particular circumstances of the present case?
1.1.

Are Article 65(3) TFEU and Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community to be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law which set out the penalties of the type and intensity of those contained in Paragraph 251(1) of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Bulgarian Penal Code) which, for a failure to comply with the obligation to declare laid down in Article 3 of that regulation, provides, as alternative options, either for a prison sentence of a maximum of six years, which need not be suspended even in the event of a first offence, or for a fine which represents twice the value of the goods involved in the criminal offence, and in addition provides, cumulatively, in Paragraph 251(2) of that code, as a supplementary penalty, for the confiscation, in favour of the State, of the entirety of the undeclared amounts of money, without it being necessary to determine the origin or intended purpose of those sums, because that provision of national law relates to a combination of penalties which go beyond that which is necessary to attain the objectives pursued by that regulation, contrary to the principle that the penalty must be proportionate to the criminal offence, enshrined in Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and constituting a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital?
1.

Does Article 45 TFEU, as interpreted following the EU Court of Justice’s judgment of 8 November 2012 in Case C-461/11, (1) preclude a rule on jurisdiction such as the Danish one, the aim of which is to ensure that the court hearing a case involving debt relief has knowledge of and can take account in its assessment of the specific socio-economic situation in which the debtor and his or her family live and must be assumed will continue to live going forward, and that the assessment may be carried out according to previously-determined criteria establishing what can be deemed to be an acceptably modest standard of living under the debt relief arrangement?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 December 2017 — Allianz Vorsorgekasse AG

(Case C-699/17)

(2018/C 104/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Allianz Vorsorgekasse AG

Participating parties: Bundestheater-Holding GmbH, Burgtheater GmbH, Wiener Staatsoper GmbH, Volksoper Wien GmbH, ART for ART Theaterservice GmbH, fair-finance Vorsorgekasse AG

Question referred

Are the provisions of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement (1) and/or Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and the obligation of transparency which derive from them in respect of public procurement, applicable to the conclusion of contracts by a contracting authority with company provident funds in respect of the management and investment of contributions in cases where the conclusion of the contract and hence the choice of provident fund requires the approval of the workforce or its representatives and can therefore not be done by the contracting authority alone?

(1) Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 94/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 11 December 2017 — Paulo Nascimento Consulting — Mediação Imobiliária Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-692/17)

(2018/C 094/10)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Paulo Nascimento Consulting — Mediação Imobiliária Lda

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

For the purposes of application of the exemption provided for in Article 135(1)(b) of the VAT Directive (1), do the terms ‘granting’, ‘negotiation’ and ‘management of credit’ encompass the assignment for consideration to a third party of the positon held by a taxable person liable for VAT in enforcement proceedings for recovery of a debt, recognised by a judgment and resulting from the breach of a property agency agreement, plus VAT at the rate in force on the date of payment and the default interest already accrued or which may accrue until full payment?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/19

Action brought on 22 December 2017 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-719/17)

(2018/C 112/26)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic

Form of order sought

1. declare that, by failing to indicate at regular intervals, at least every three months, the relevant number of applicants who could be relocated swiftly to its territory, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 of 14 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece (1) and Article 5(2) of Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece, (2) and hence also the further obligations concerning relocation laid down in Articles 5(4) to (11) of those two Council decisions;

2. order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In September 2015 the Council adopted a provisional programme of emergency relocation by means of two decisions, namely Decision (EU) 2015/1523 and Decision (EU) 2015/1601, on the basis of which the Member States undertook to relocate from Italy and Greece persons in clear need of international protection.

The Council decisions impose an obligation on the Member States to offer every three months available places for relocation, so as to ensure a speedy and orderly relocation process. While nearly all States carried out relocations and accepted obligations in that field, the Czech Republic has not carried out any relocations since August 2016, and for more than a year now has not offered any new places.

On 15 June 2017 the Commission started a procedure for failure to fulfil obligations against the Czech Republic.

The Czech Republic’s answer was not regarded as satisfactory, and the Commission therefore decided to proceed to the next step in the procedure, namely the issuing of a reasoned opinion on 26 July 2017.

The answer to the reasoned opinion was not regarded as satisfactory, and the Commission therefore decided to bring an action against the Czech Republic before the Court of Justice of the European Union for failure to fulfil obligations concerning relocation.

(1) OJ 2015 L 239, p. 146.

(2) OJ 2015 L 248, p. 80.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 18 December 2017 — CCC — Consorzio Cooperative Costruzioni Soc. Cooperativa v Comune di Tarvisio

(Case C-710/17)

(2018/C 112/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CCC — Consorzio Cooperative Costruzioni Soc. Cooperativa

Defendant: Comune di Tarvisio

Question referred

Is a provision such as that of Article 53(3) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 16 April 2006 that allows the participation of an undertaking with a ‘named’ design engineer who, since he is not himself a tenderer, may not rely on the capacity of others, compatible with Article 48 of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004? (1)

(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).
Case C-685/17 P: Appeal brought on 6 December 2017 by Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA, Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 26 September 2017 in Case T-84/16: Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and Banca Widiba SpA v EUIPO

Appeal brought on 6 December 2017 by Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA, Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 26 September 2017 in Case T-84/16: Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and Banca Widiba SpA v EUIPO

(Case C-685/17 P)

Parties

Appellants: Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA, Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) (represented by: L. Trevisan, D. Contini, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 17 May 2018 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 19 December 2017 — Anke Hartog v British Airways plc

(Case C-711/17)

(2018/C 134/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anke Hartog

Defendant: British Airways plc

Question referred

Must the condition laid down in Article 3(2)(a) for the applicability 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 (1) be interpreted as meaning that passengers, who have a confirmed reservation, have ‘present[ed] themselves for check-in’ if, where no time is indicated, they have joined the queue for the check-in desks used by the air carrier for the check-in in question no later than 45 minutes before the published departure time?

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Case C-361/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2017 — Ole Feuser v TUIfly GmbH

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2017 — Ole Feuser v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-361/17)

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ole Feuser

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

By decision of the Court of Justice of 28 May 2018 the case was removed from the Court’s register.
Case C-360/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2017 — Nicole Hofmann v TUIfly GmbH

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2017 — Nicole Hofmann v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-360/17)

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nicole Hofmann

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

By decision of the Court of Justice of 28 May 2018 the case was removed from the Court’s register.
(1)

Is Article 87(8) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a person who, before 1 May 2010, began to pursue an activity as an employed person in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and an activity as a self-employed person in Belgium must, in order to be subject to the legislation applicable pursuant to Regulation 883/2004, submit an explicit request to that effect, even if he was subject to no obligation to pay contributions in Belgium before 1 May 2010 and was made subject to the Belgian legislation on the social security scheme for self-employed persons only retroactively, following the expiry of the three-month period starting on 1 May 2010?
—

To establish a procedure whereby the authorities of each Member State assess and organise human activities in the marine regions within their jurisdiction in order to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives, the Commission, in accordance with its binding practice concerning the implementation of Article 260(3) TFEU, (2) seeks at the same time the imposition of a penalty payment amounting to EUR 31 416 per day, taking into consideration in particular the seriousness of the infringement (see the objectives of the directive which relate to the common fisheries policy, maritime shipping, the conservation and protection of the environment and energy, but also the impact on the economic operators concerned).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/36

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2018 — Vanessa Gambietz v Erika Ziegler

(Case C-131/18)

(2018/C 142/48)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vanessa Gambietz

Defendant: Erika Ziegler

Question referred

Is Article 6(3) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the fixed sum of EUR 40 referred to in Article 6(1) of that directive is to be offset against external legal costs which have been incurred in connection with the pre-litigation instruction of a lawyer following late payment on the part of the debtor and are therefore reimbursable under Article 6(3) of that directive?

(1) OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1.
3.

If the first question is answered in the negative: are national rules in keeping with the spirit and purpose of Directive 2009/72/EC permissible, such as those laid down in Paragraph 1(44), read in combination with Paragraph 1(20), of the Addenda to the Bulgarian Energy Law, which state that ‘transmission of electricity’ means the transport of electricity via the transmission network and that ‘electricity transmission system’ means all the power lines and installations used for the transmission, transformation from high to medium voltage and redistribution of electricity? All other things being equal, are national regulations permissible, such as those laid down in Article 88(1) of the Bulgarian Energy Law, which states that electricity is to be distributed and electricity distribution systems are to be operated by distribution network operators which own those networks in a specific area and hold an electricity distribution licence for that area?