ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
are explicitly presented and marketed as being for medical purposes and as producing the effects identified in (iii) above,

on the basis of the chemicals being the material or component which gives them their essential character and not under heading 3005 (on the basis of the wording of the relevant headings, section or chapter notes, and explanatory notes under General Rule of Interpretation 1, the operation of General Rule of Interpretation 3(a) requiring classification in accordance with the most specific description, or otherwise)?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o 9 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2019 — SL v Vueling Airlines S.A.

(Case C-86/19)

(2019/C 164/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o 9 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SL

Defendant: Vueling Airlines S.A.

Question referred

Where the loss of a suitcase has been established, must the airline compensate the passenger in each and every case with the maximum compensation limit of SDR 1 131, since that is the most serious of the situations provided for in Articles 17(2) and 22(2) of the Montreal Convention of 28 May 1999, or is that maximum compensation limit one which can be adjusted by the court, including in the event of loss of a suitcase, in the light of the circumstances, so that the amount of SDR 1 131 will be awarded only if the passenger establishes, by whatever means are permitted in law, that the value of the items and personal effects he was carrying in the checked baggage, and of those which he had to purchase to replace them, came to that limit, or, failing that, may other criteria be taken into account, such as, for example, the weight of the suitcase or whether the baggage was lost on the outbound or return journey, for the purposes of assessing the non-material damage caused by the inconvenience arising from the loss of the passenger’s baggage?
2.

Is Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 to be interpreted as establishing a procedural rule of public policy requiring national courts to refrain from issuing an order for payment where it is demonstrated by documentary evidence, before the court issuing the order for payment, that the claim arises from general contractual terms and conditions (GTC) which have already been held to be void, because they are unfair, by final judgments in injunction proceedings brought by consumer organisations against suppliers and which are listed in the ministerial decision Z1-798/25-06-2008 (FEK B 1353/11-07-2008), which contains a national register of unfair terms [as amended and supplemented by Ministerial Decision Z1-21/17-01-2011, which was deemed lawful by Decision No 1210/2010 of the Greek Council of State (Simvoulio tis Epikratias), after taking into account, first, Decisions No 1219/2001 and No 430/2005 of the Greek Court of Cassation (Areios Pagos), judgments No 5253/2003 and No 6291/2000 of the Athens Court of Appeal (Efeteio Athinon), judgments No 1119/2002 and No 1208/1998 of the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon (Athens Regional Court, sitting as a panel of several judges) which has the force of res judicata and judgment No 961/2007 of the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon (Athens Regional Court, sitting as a panel of several judges) which, in turn, has the force of res judicata and, secondly, the fact that the res judicata effects of those court decisions are of major public interest for the proper functioning of the market and for the protection of consumers (Article 10(2) of Law 2251/1994); it is by that ministerial decision that ‘the prohibition on the inclusion, in contracts concluded between credit institutions and consumers, of general contractual conditions which have been held to be unfair by judicial decisions rendered in legal proceedings brought by consumer organisations’ was decreed and that decision lists the GTCs that have been held to be void, because they are unfair, following collective legal proceedings brought by consumer organisations against banks considered as suppliers], taking into account in particular the fact that in Greece, the competence to issue an order for payment lies with courts — more precisely with the Eirinodikeia (justices of the peace) and Protodikeia (courts of first instance) — and the fact that the order for payment constitutes an immediately enforceable order, according to which the supplier may, after three days, initiate a enforcement proceedings which are not subject to any suspension?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Zărnești (Romania) lodged on 7 February 2019 — Asociația ‘Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor’ v TM, UN and Asociația DMPA

(Case C-88/19)

(2019/C 172/09)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Zărnești

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociația ‘Alianța pentru combaterea abuzurilor’

Defendants: TM, UN and Asociația DMPA

Question referred

Must Article 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) be interpreted as requiring the Member States to lay down derogations from Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15(a) and (b) thereof in cases where animals belonging to threatened species leave their natural habit and are either in its immediate vicinity or completely outside it?

(1) 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).
2.

The second ground of appeal is that the General Court — if it correctly defined the legal conditions governing eligibility of the claim — accepted that the claim at issue was lawful on the basis that only one of the conditions (namely, the Condition on Actual Hours of Work) is satisfied for the reason (in its judgment) that ERCEA did not dispute it. In that way the General Court erred as follows: i. the General Court infringed the Rules. ii. the General Court also infringed the rules of the law that must be applied to contracts. iii. on the assumption that the General Court did not neglect to assess the other conditions (and that its approach to the subject was deliberate), the General Court also was in breach of the duty to state sufficient reasons in judgments. iv. In any event — and on the view that the General Court did not neglect to assess the other conditions and in fact implicitly examined them — the General Court infringed the rules on the burden of proof.
Appeal brought on 20 February 2019 by Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-358/17: Mubarak v Council

(Case C-145/19 P)

(2019/C 148/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak (represented by: D. Anderson QC, B. Kennelly QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, G. Martin, C. Enderby Smith, F. Holmey, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1. set aside the decision under appeal;

2. itself give final judgment in this case, annulling the contested acts in so far as they concern the appellant;

3. in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment, in line with the legal assessment of the Court of Justice; and

4. order the Council to pay the appellant’s costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the Council was not required to verify that the Egyptian authorities had respected the appellant’s fundamental EU rights.

Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the Council was not required to verify that the judicial proceedings and investigations involving the appellant concern acts that are such as to undermine the rule of law in Egypt.

Third plea of law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the Council had not made a manifest error of assessment in relying on Case No. 8897 (Private Villa Refurbishment Case).

Fourth plea of law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the Council had not made a manifest error of assessment in relying on Case No. 756 (Al-Ahram Establishment Gifts Allegation) and Case No. 53 (Dar El Tahrir Gifts Allegation).
1.

In relation to the situation of late (and/or incomplete) implementation in the national legal system of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, which is non-self-executing as regards the establishment, required by it, of a scheme for compensation for the victims of violent crimes, which gives rise, in relation to cross-border persons, who are the sole addressees of the directive, to a liability on the part of the Member State to pay compensation in accordance with the principles set out in the case-law of the Court of Justice (inter alia the judgments in Francovich and Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame III), does [EU] law require that a similar liability be imposed on the Member State in relation to non-cross-border (and thus resident) persons, who are not the direct addressees of the benefits deriving from implementation of the directive but who, in order to avoid infringement of the principle of equal treatment/non-discrimination in that [EU] law, should have and could have — if the directive had been implemented in full and in good time — benefited, by extension, from the effet utile of that directive (that is to say, the abovementioned compensation scheme)? If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative:
2.

Although the provision laid down in Article 25(16) of Sicilian Regional Law No 19 of 22 December 2005, under which, ‘in pursuit of the objectives laid down in Article 1 of Sicilian Regional Law No 12 of 5 June 1989, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Article 134 of Regional Law No 32 of 23 December 2000, expenditure of EUR 20 000 000 is authorised for the payment of amounts due from local health authorities in Sicily to owners of animals slaughtered as a result of being affected by infectious and widespread diseases in the period between 2000 and 2006, and for payment of the fee to veterinary professionals involved in the remediation activities during that period. For the purposes of this paragraph, the expenditure of EUR 10 000 000 (base provision 10.3.1.3.2, chapter 417702) is authorised for the 2005 financial year. For subsequent financial years, arrangements shall be made pursuant to Article 3(2)(i) of Regional Law No 10 of 27 April 1999, as amended’, might in principle constitute State aid which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, can this nonetheless be recognised as being compatible with Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty (and now with Articles 107 and 108 TFEU) in view of the reasons that led the European Commission, by means of its Decision C(2002)4786 of 6 December 2002, to take the view, where the criteria provided for in the Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector contained in Information from the Commission 2000/C 28/02, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJ C 28, p. 2) of 1 February 2000, are met, that similar provisions contained in Articles 11 of Sicilian Regional Law No 40/1997 and Article 7 of Regional Law No 22/1999 were compatible with Articles 87 and 88 EC?
1.

Does the practice of a Member State infringe the principle of fiscal neutrality and the formal requirements of the right to deduct VAT where, for the purposes of exercising the right to deduct the tax, it has regard solely to the time the chargeable event occurred, and does not take into account the fact that there was a civil dispute between the parties concerning performance of the contract, which was determined in judicial proceedings, and that the invoice was only issued once a final judgment was delivered?
3.

Must Clause 5 of the framework agreement laid down in Directive 1999/70/EC be interpreted as precluding a national legal provision, such as the provision at issue, under which the rules of ordinary law governing employment relationships and intended to penalise the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts by the automatic conversion of a fixed-term contract into a contract of indefinite duration where the employment relationship continues for more than a certain period of time, do not apply to the schools sector — specifically to Catholic religious education teachers — and therefore permit successive fixed-term employment contracts for an indefinite period of time? In particular, can the requirement to obtain the approval of the diocesan ordinary constitute an objective reason within the meaning of Clause 5(1)(a) of the framework agreement, or, instead, should such treatment be regarded as discrimination prohibited under Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?;
3.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union be interpreted as meaning that it obliges the Member States to take the measures necessary to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law, that is to say, guarantees of an independent disciplinary procedure for Romanian judges, by eliminating all risks of political influence over the conduct of those procedures, such as direct Government appointment of the management of the Inspecția Judiciară (Judicial Inspection, Romania), even on a provisional basis?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia (Italy) lodged on 25 February 2019 — HB v Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale

(Case C-168/19)

(2019/C 206/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei Conti — Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HB

Defendant: Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale

Question referred

Must Articles 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides for the taxation, in that Member State, of the income of a person resident in another Member State who receives all of his income from the first Member State but who does not hold the nationality of the second Member State, without the benefit of the tax advantages provided by that second Member State?
1.

Must the non-binding effect laid down in Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) be interpreted as precluding the validity of an agreement amending an unfair term concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier in circumstances in which (a) the unfair term had not been declared null and void when that amending agreement was concluded, nor had its lack of validity been identified and nor had the consumer been advised of the possibility that that term might be declared unfair, and (b) the amending agreement is not in the nature of a settlement? In that situation, is it material to the validity of that agreement that the consumer has negotiated the wording of the amendment?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Austria) lodged on 30 April 2019 — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG

(Case C-343/19)

(2019/C 230/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Klagenfurt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Defendant and respondent: Volkswagen AG

Question referred

Is point 2 of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ may be construed as the place in a Member State where the damage occurred, when that damage consists exclusively of financial damage that is the direct result of an unlawful act committed in another Member State?

(1) OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
4.

Does the principle of judicial independence, enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (judgment of 27 February 2018, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, C-64/16, EU:C:2018:117), preclude the establishment of the section for the investigation of offences committed within the Judiciary, within the prosecutor’s office attached to the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania), in the light of the rules governing the appointment/removal of prosecutors as members of that section, the rules governing the exercise of functions within that section and the way in which jurisdiction is established, in connection with the limited number of positions in that section?
1.

Is a provision of national law, namely Article 1 of the Ovršni zakon (Law on enforcement) (published in the Narodne novine No 112/12, 25/13, 93/14, 55/16 and 73/17), which gives notaries the power to enforce the recovery of debts based on an authentic document by issuing a writ of execution, as an enforcement order, without the express agreement of the debtor who is a legal person established in the Republic of Croatia, compatible with Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in the light of the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Cases C-484/15 and C-551/15?
Official Journal of the European Union

Reference for a preliminary ruling from International Protection Appeals Tribunal (Ireland) made on 16 May 2019 — Ms R.A.T., Mr D.S. v Minister for Justice and Equality

(Case C-385/19)

(2019/C 255/33)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

International Protection Appeals Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Ms R.A.T. and Mr D.S.

Respondent: Minister for Justice and Equality

Questions referred

1) Are there separate categories of ‘Applicant’ envisaged in Article 15 of Directive 2013/33/EU (1)?

2) What type of conduct will amount to delay attributable to the applicant within the meaning of Article 15(1) of Directive 2013/33/EU?

(1) Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ 2013, L 180, p. 96).
1.

Does the obligation for a national court to order an aid recipient to pay illegality interest (see the judgment in CELF (1)) apply also in a situation such as that in the present case, in which the unlawful State aid constituted public service compensation which was subsequently found to be compatible with the internal market under Article 106(2) TFEU and in which approval was granted on the basis of an assessment of the entire public service undertaking’s overall financial situation, including its capitalisation?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 24 May 2019 — Société Générale SA v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

(Case C-403/19)

(2019/C 270/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Générale SA

Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

Question referred

In the light of Article 56 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, now Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, does the fact that the application of the rules set out in paragraph 5 of this decision, in order to compensate for the double taxation of dividends paid to a company liable for corporation tax in the Member State of residence by a company resident in another Member State and subject, by virtue of the exercise by that Member States of the power of taxation, to withholding tax, is liable to create a disadvantage to the detriment of transactions involving the securities of foreign companies carried out by companies liable for corporation tax in the first Member State, mean that that State, where it has been decided to grant a concession in response to the double taxation, goes beyond waiving its right to receive the tax revenue that it would derive from the imposition of corporation tax on the dividends in question?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 21 January 2019 by Daico International BV against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 22 November 2018 in Case T-356/17: Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing

(Case C-36/19 P)

(2019/C 280/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Daico International BV (represented by: M. F. J. Haak, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 4 July 2019 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 16 April 2019 — R.C.C. v M.O.L.

(Case C-314/19)

(2019/C 280/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: R.C.C.

Respondent: M.O.L.

Question referred

Does Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, (1) and therefore the content of the directive, apply to a case in which a Notary, a public official who, in turn, is the private employer of the staff working for him, that relationship as employer being governed by general employment law and by the sectoral collective agreement, who replaces the previous departing Notary, taking over his Protocol, and who continues to provide that service at the same workplace, with the same material facilities, and who takes on the staff who worked for the previous Notary who ran that practice?

(1) OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 26 June 2019 — Syndicat interprofessionnel de défense du fromage Morbier v Société Fromagère du Livradois SAS

(Case C-490/19)

(2019/C 288/44)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Syndicat interprofessionnel de défense du fromage Morbier

Defendant: Société Fromagère du Livradois SAS

Question referred

Must Article 13(1) of Council Regulation No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 (1) and Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 (2) be interpreted as prohibiting solely the use by a third party of the registered name, or must they be interpreted as prohibiting the presentation of a product protected by a designation of origin, in particular the reproduction of the shape or the appearance which are characteristic of it, which is liable to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product, even if the registered name is not used?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12).

(2) Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).
3.

Is a Member State that has been requested by a third country to extradite a Union citizen obliged, on the basis of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 September 2016 in the Petruhhin case (C-182/15), to refuse extradition and to take over the criminal prosecution itself if it is possible for it to do so under its national law?