ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

the applicant generally purchased the trucks — in its view, at distorted prices — in the State of the court seised, and to that end it entered into financial leasing agreements involving definite transfer of ownership with undertakings that operated in that State but, according to its own statements, the applicant negotiated directly with the vehicle dealerships, and the lessor added its own profit margin and the leasing costs onto the prices agreed by the applicant, and the right of ownership over the vehicles was transferred to the applicant on completion of the leasing agreement, when it expired?
4.

If independent of the executive, is a public prosecutor who is confined to initiating and conducting investigations and assuring that such investigations are conducted objectively and lawfully, the issuing of indictments, executing judicial decisions and conducting the prosecution of criminal offences, and does not issue national warrants and may not perform judicial functions a ‘judicial authority’ for the purposes of Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision?
1.

Are Clauses 2.4 and 2.6 of the framework agreement on parental leave, annexed to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 concerning the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the application to an employee who is on part-time parental leave at the time of his dismissal of a provision of domestic law, such as Article L. 3123-13 of the Labour Code, applicable at the material time, under which ‘the compensation payment for dismissal and retirement benefit payable to an employee who has worked on both a full-time and part-time basis for the same undertaking shall be calculated in proportion to the periods of each of those types of employment completed since the employee joined the undertaking’?
1.

Do the provisions of the Schengen Agreement or the Schengen Borders Code preclude provisions of national law such as those set out in Paragraph 16 of the Lagen (2016:752) om tillfälliga begränsningar av möjligheten att få uppehållstillstånd i Sverige (Law (2016:752) on temporary restrictions on the possibility of obtaining a residence permit in Sweden) and which mean that a residence permit for study at secondary school level may be granted to a third-country national who is in a Member State, even if his or her identity is unclear or he or she is unable to provide prima facie evidence of his or her stated identity?
1.

Is a reference to general, non-specific health-related benefits ‘accompanied’ within the meaning of Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1) by specific health claims in accordance with one of the lists provided for in Article 13 or 14 of that regulation even if that reference is situated on the front and the authorised claims are situated on the back of an outer packaging and, in the perception of the public, although the claims are clearly related to the reference in terms of content, the reference does not contain a clear indication, marked with an asterisk for example, to the claims on the back?
4.

When the amending novation contract is examined in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice and Articles 3(1) and 4(2) of Directive [93/13], is the new floor clause included vitiated once again by a lack of transparency, as the bank has again failed to comply with the transparency criteria laid down in the [judgment of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain)] of 9 May 2013 and failed to inform the customer of the true financial cost of the said term in his mortgage, which would make him aware of the interest rate (and the resulting amount) that he would have to pay if the new floor clause were to be applied, and the interest rate (and the resulting amount) that he would have to pay if no floor clause were applied and the interest rate agreed in the mortgage were applied with no lower limit? In other words, when the financial institution imposed the document referred to as a novation in respect of ‘floor clauses’, should it have satisfied the transparency tests described in Articles 3(1) and 4(2) of Directive [93/13] and informed the consumer of the amount of money lost as a result of applying the ‘floor clauses’, and of the interest rate that would be applicable in the absence of those clauses, and, given that the bank did not do so, are those documents also vitiated by a ground of nullity?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 28 June 2018 — Consorzio Nazionale Servizi Società Cooperativa (CNS) v Gruppo Torinese Trasporti Gtt SpA

(Case C-425/18)

(2018/C 399/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Consorzio Nazionale Servizi Società Cooperativa (CNS)

Defendant: Gruppo Torinese Trasporti Gtt SpA

Question referred

Do Articles 53(3) and 54(4) of Directive 2004/17/EC, (1) in conjunction with Article 45(2)(d) of Directive 2004/18/EC, (2) preclude a provision such as Article 38(1)(f) of Legislative Decree No 163/2006 of the Italian Republic, as interpreted by national case-law, which excludes from the scope of ‘grave professional misconduct’ on the part of an economic operator conduct consisting in infringement of the competition rules, which has been established and penalised by the national competition authority by decision upheld by the courts, thereby precluding a priori the contracting authorities from assessing such infringements independently for the purposes of determining whether such an economic operator is to be excluded from a tender procedure for the award of a public contract, as a possible but not a mandatory outcome?

(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).

(2) 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).
Appeal brought on 21 September 2018 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-786/14: Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and Others v Council of the European Union and Others

(Case C-598/18 P)

(2018/C 427/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, E. Chatziioakeimidou, I. Gurov, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali and Others, European Commission, European Central Bank, Euro Group, represented by the Council of the European Union, European Union, represented by the European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the parts of the contested judgments in which the General Court dismisses the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council in respect of the Euro Group;

— and order the respondents to pay the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal of the Council seeks to set aside the parts of the contested judgment in which the General Court dismisses the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council in respect of the Euro Group and is based on the following grounds:

— the General Court has erred in law in deciding that the Euro Group is a ‘body of the Union formally established by the Treaties’;

— the General Court has erred in law in dismissing the plea of inadmissibility of the Council while failing to identify any ‘powers’ conferred on the Euro Group by the Treaties;
1.

Must Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC, (1) read in conjunction with the right to security, guaranteed by Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the right to respect for personal data, as guaranteed by Articles 7, 8 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue, which lays down a general obligation for operators and providers of electronic communications services to retain the traffic and location data within the meaning of Directive 2002/58/EC, generated or processed by them in the context of the supply of those services, national legislation whose objective is not only the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious criminal offences but also the safeguarding of national security, the defence of the territory and of public security, the investigation, detection and prosecution of offences other than serious crime or the prevention of the prohibited use of electronic communication systems, or the attainment of another objective identified by Article 23(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (2) and which, furthermore, is subject to specific guarantees in that legislation in terms of data retention and access to those data?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 18 January 2018 by Carrera Brands Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 November 2017 in Case T-419/16, Carrera Brands Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-35/18 P)

(2018/C 427/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Carrera Brands Ltd (represented by: C. Markowsky, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Autec AG

By order of 14 June 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and others against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-680/13: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and Others v Council of the European Union and Others

(Case C-603/18 P)

(2018/C 427/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and Others (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Euro Group, represented by the Council of the European Union, European Union, represented by the European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— quash the decision of the General Court;

— grant the orders sought by the applicants in the proceedings before the General Court;

— order the respondents to pay the costs of this appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants consider that the General Court erred in law by:

(a) finding that the Euro Group did not require Cyprus to take the measures causing them loss or that those measures were not required by action attributable to the EU.

(b) considering that the ECB press release of 21 March 2013 did not cause harm to the appellants;

(c) holding that by certain other acts the respondents did not require Cyprus to continue to implement the harmful measures and/or did not require the adoption of the harmful measures introduced by the amendments made to the harmful decrees on 30 July 2013;

(d) considering that not all of the harmful measures were required by Council Decision 2013/236 (1);

(e) finding that there was no serious breach of the right to property, as protected by Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms; the principle of protection of legitimate expectations; and the principle of non-discrimination.

The appellants argue that the harmful measures fail to satisfy the requirement that restrictions on the right to property must be provided by law and also the requirement of proportionality. They consider that the conduct of the respondents gave rise to a legitimate expectation that no bail-in measures would be taken imposing a ‘haircut’ on their assets. They consider that as depositors and/or shareholders in the Bank of Cyprus and Laiki suffered discrimination, inter alia, vis-à-vis depositors and shareholders respectively in banks in other Eurozone Member States who benefited from financial assistance similar to that granted to Cyprus.

(1) Council Decision of 25 April 2013 addressed to Cyprus on specific measures to restore financial stability and sustainable growth (OJ 2013, L 141, p. 32).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 21 September 2018 by Star Television Productions Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-797/17 Star Television Productions v EUIPO — Marc Dorcel (STAR)

(Case C-602/18 P)

(2018/C 436/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Star Television Productions Ltd (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Marc Dorcel

By order of 18 October 2018, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 17 August 2018 — YV

(Case C-537/18)

(2018/C 427/16)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: YV

Respondent: Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa

Question referred

Should Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where an appeal is brought before a court of final instance in a Member State against an alleged infringement of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age in respect of a judge of that court, together with a motion for suspension of execution of the contested measure, that court — in order to protect the rights arising from EU law by ordering an interim measure provided for under national law — must refuse to apply national provisions which confer jurisdiction, in the case in which the appeal was lodged, on an organisational unit of that court which is not operational by reason of a failure to appoint the judges adjudicating within it?

(1) OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.
3.

In the event that the first question is answered in the negative and that, therefore, a Member State can apply other requirements in addition to that set out in Article 10(2) (that the family member must be ‘dependent on the refugee’), does this mean that the Member State is entitled, if it sees fit, to establish any requirement, including those laid down in Article 4(2) and (3) in relation to other family members, or can the Member State only apply the requirement contained in Article 4(3) of the Directive? In that case, what factual situation is entailed by the requirement ‘objectively unable to provide for their own needs on account of their state of health’ in Article 4(3) of the Directive? Must it be interpreted as meaning that such family members are unable [to provide] for ‘their own needs’ or that ‘they are unable’ to look after ‘themselves’, or, if applicable, in some other way?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 20 August 2018 — HM Revenue & Customs v HD

(Case C-544/18)

(2018/C 436/26)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HM Revenue & Customs

Defendant: HD

Question referred

Must Article 49 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that such a person, who ceases self-employed activity in circumstances where there are physical constraints in the late stages of pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth, retains the status of being self-employed, within the meaning of that Article, provided she returns to economic activity or seeking work within a reasonable period after the birth of her child?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 10 September 2018 by HF against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 June 2018 in Case T-218/17, HF v Parliament

(Case C-570/18 P)

(2018/C 455/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: HF (represented by: A. Tymen, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2018 in Case T-218/17, Consequently,

— uphold the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance and, thus,

— annul the decision of the European Parliament of 30 June 2016 rejecting the appellant’s request for assistance,

— order the Parliament to pay compensation in respect of non-financial harm estimated ex aequo et bono at EUR 90 000,

— order the European Parliament to pay all of the costs incurred at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

— Breach of the right to be heard — Breach of Article 41[(2)](a) of the Charter;

— Breach of Article 41(1) of the Charter — Distortion of the arguments of the appellant — Breach by the General Court of its obligation to state reasons;

— Breach of Article 31(1) of the Charter — Infringement of Article 12a(1), (3) and (24) of the Staff Regulations.

Furthermore, the appellant disputes the decision of the General Court to reject her claim for damages on the ground that the contested decision has not been set aside.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Tributário de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 28 September 2018 — State of Canada v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-613/18)

(2018/C 445/09)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Tributário de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: State of Canada

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

In the context of taxation of dividends distributed by a company established in the national territory to a non-resident entity, is it compatible with the principle precluding restrictions on movements of capital between Member States and third countries for there to be an effective rate of corporation tax which is applied more disadvantageously to entities resident in a third country than to a resident in the national territory which is similar in nature?
1.

Are the criteria according to which to decide whether a public prosecutor designated as an issuing judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1) (1) is a judicial authority within the autonomous meaning of that phrase in Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 2002 on [the] European arrest warrant and surrender proceedings between Member States that (1) the public prosecutor is independent from the executive and (2) considered in his own legal system to administer justice or participate in the administration of justice?
—

Must those provisions be interpreted in particular as precluding a situation in which reductions of the basis of assessment intended to take into account the period for which securities have been held do not apply to the deferred capital gain, having regard to the fact that that basis of assessment rule did not apply on the date on which the capital gain arose, but they do apply to the capital gain on a transfer of the securities received in exchange, taking into account the date of the exchange instead of the date on which the securities given in exchange were acquired?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 17 October 2018 — Autoritatea națională de reglementare în domeniul energiei (ANRE) v Societatea de Producere a Energiei Electrice în Hidrocentrale Hidroelectrica SA

(Case C-648/18)

(2019/C 25/23)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Autoritatea națională de reglementare în domeniul energiei (ANRE)

Respondent: Societatea de Producere a Energiei Electrice în Hidrocentrale Hidroelectrica SA

Question referred

Does Article 35 TFEU preclude an interpretation of Article 23(1) and Article 28(c) of the Legea energiei electrice și a gazelor naturale nr. 123/2012 according to which electricity producers in Romania are obliged to trade all the electricity they produce exclusively on a centralised competitive market in Romania, given that there is the possibility of exporting energy, albeit not directly but through trading companies?
1.

Do the combined provisions of Article 8 and Article 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC preclude national legislation which specifies that the penalty for failure to fulfil the creditor’s obligation to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness before the conclusion of the credit agreement shall be the nullity of the credit agreement linked with an obligation on the consumer to return the principal sum to the creditor at a time appropriate to the consumer’s financial capacity, where such a penalty (the nullity of the credit agreement) is however applicable only in the event that the consumer invokes it (that is, raises an objection of nullity in relation to the agreement) within a three-year limitation period?
1.

Can it be inferred, from the mere fact that a company established outside the European Union has a subsidiary in the territory of Poland, that a fixed establishment exists in Poland within the meaning of Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and Article 11(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax? (2)
2.

In the event that judges are appointed to adjudicate within the organisational unit having jurisdiction under national law to hear and determine the action brought, on a proper construction of the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, is a newly-created chamber of a court of last instance of a Member State which has jurisdiction to hear the case of a national court judge at first or second instance and which is composed exclusively of judges selected by a national body tasked with safeguarding the independence of the courts, namely the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary), which, having regard to the systemic model for the way in which it is formed and the way in which it operates, is not guaranteed to be independent from the legislative and executive authorities, an independent court or tribunal within the meaning of EU law?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 14 August 2018 by Emcur Gesundheitsmittel aus Bad Ems GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2018 in Case T-165/17: Emcur v EUIPO

(Case C-533/18 P)

(2019/C 65/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Emcur Gesundheitsmittel aus Bad Ems GmbH (represented by: K. Bröcker, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 8 January 2019 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.