ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 23 July 2015 — Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark v Finanzamt Brandenburg

(Case C-400/15)

(2015/C 363/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Finanzamt Brandenburg

Question referred

The second sentence of Paragraph 15(1) of the German Umsatzsteuergesetz (Law on turnover tax) provides that the intra-Community supply, importation or acquisition of goods which a commercial operator uses in the amount of less than 10 % for the purposes of his business does not count as being carried out for the purposes of his business — and to that extent excludes the right to deduct input tax.

That rule is based on Article 1 of Council Decision 2004/817/EC (1) of 19 November 2004, which authorises the Federal Republic of Germany, by way of derogation from Article 17(2) of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, to exclude expenditure on goods and services from the right to deduct VAT when the goods and services in question are used more than 90 % for the private purposes of a taxable person or of his employees, or, more generally, for non-business purposes.

Does this authorisation — in accordance with its wording — apply only to the cases covered by Article 6(2) of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (Article 26 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax), or does it apply, in addition, to all cases in which goods or services are used only partly for business purposes?

(1) OJ 2004 L 357, p. 33.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Hilde Orleans and Others v Vlaams Gewest; other party: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen

(Case C-387/15)

(2015/C 354/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hilde Orleans, Rudi Van Buel, Marina Apers

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Intervener: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen

Question referred

The Regional Development Implementation Plan (GRUP) contains planning rules under which, in mandatory terms, the development of areas (more specifically, for seaport- and water-related businesses, for a logistics park, for waterway infrastructure and for traffic and transport infrastructure) which have ecological features (areas hosting a natural habitat type or the habitat of a species for which the special area of conservation concerned was designated) which make a contribution to the conservation objectives of the special areas of conservation concerned, is possible only after the creation of sustainable habitats in ecological core areas (designated within the Natura 2000 area) and following a decision by the Flemish Government preceded by an opinion from the Flemish administrative body responsible for nature conservation — which should form part of an application for a planning permit with a view to the development of the aforementioned facilities — that the sustainable creation of the ecological core areas has been successful.

Can those planning rules with their envisaged positive developments of ecological core areas be taken into account in the determination, under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (1), of potentially significant effects and/or in the making of an appropriate assessment, or can those planning rules be regarded only as ‘compensatory measures’ within the meaning of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, in so far as the conditions laid down in that provision have been satisfied?

(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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 September 2015 — Jean-Michel Adrien, Frédéric Baron, Catherine Blanchin, Marc Bouillaguet, Anne-Sophie Chalhoub, Denis d’Ersu, Laurent Gravière, Vincent Cador, Roland Moustache, Jean Richard de la Tour, Anne Schneider, Bernard Stamm and Eléonore von Bardeleben v Premier ministre, Ministre des finances et des comptes publics, Ministre de la décentralisation et de la fonction publique

(Case C-466/15)

(2015/C 381/22)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Jean-Michel Adrien, Frédéric Baron, Catherine Blanchin, Marc Bouillaguet, Anne-Sophie Chalhoub, Denis d’Ersu, Laurent Gravière, Vincent Cador, Roland Moustache, Jean Richard de la Tour, Anne Schneider, Bernard Stamm and Eléonore von Bardeleben

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre des finances et des comptes publics, Ministre de la décentralisation et de la fonction publique

Question referred

Is national legislation which permits an official on secondment to an institution of the European Union to choose, for the duration of his secondment, either to suspend his payment of contributions to the pension scheme in his State of origin, in which case his pension under that scheme is fully aggregated with the retirement benefits connected with the secondment, or to continue with the payments, in which case his pension under that scheme is limited to the amount required in order to bring the total amount of the pensions, including the pension acquired under the scheme applicable to the position to which he is seconded, to the amount of the pension he would have acquired if he had not been seconded contrary to the obligations under Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, read in the light of Article 48 TFEU, and to the principle of sincere cooperation referred to in Article 4 of the Treaty on the European Union?
(ii)

set aside the judgment under appeal, in part, in so far as it relates to: — the volume of sales to be taken into account; — the burden of proof relating to the duration of the participation in the cartel; — the attribution of a greater degree of gravity of the infringement compared with Fundia; — the allocation of an excessive additional amount;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/20

Action brought on 14 September 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-488/15)

(2015/C 389/22)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Kružíková, E. Manhaeve and S. Petrovа, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court should:

— by exceeding both the annual and daily limit values for PM10 systematically and from 2007 until at least 2013 inclusive in the following zones and agglomerations: BG0001 agglomeration Sofia; BG0002 agglomeration Plovdiv; BG0004 North Bulgaria; BG0005 South-West Bulgaria and BG0006 South-East Bulgaria;

— by exceeding the daily limit values for PM10 systematically and from 2007 until at least 2013 inclusive and the annual limit values for PM10 of 2007, 2008 and 2010 in zone BG0003 Varna;

— and in the absence of more detailed information to the effect for instance that the situation of exceeding the daily and annual limit values for PM10 in the abovementioned zones and agglomerations has changed, declare that Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) read in conjunction with Annex XI of the directive; (1)

— in view of the fact that, excluding the latest annual report on air quality for 2013, both the annual and daily limit values for PM10 in all of the abovementioned zones and agglomerations continue to be exceeded, also declare that Bulgaria has not complied with its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of the directive and in particular its obligation to keep the exceedance period as short as possible, and declare that it continues not to fulfil its obligations;

— order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On the basis of the latest annual report on air quality and also of the responses of the Bulgarian authorities to the reasoned opinion, the Commission takes the view that, at present, the Republic of Bulgaria has not fulfilled its obligations under Article 13(1) concerning compliance with the annual and daily limit values for the presence of micro-dust particles in the air (PM10) and under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of the directive with regard to the obligation to draw up air quality plans in order to keep the exceedance period as short as possible.

The Commission considers it necessary for the Court of Justice of the European Union to declare that the Republic of Bulgaria has infringed those provisions of the directive.

(1) Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1).
3.

Moreover the General Court's decision under review is also based on a distortion of facts and evidence as well as on a misconception and misappropriation of the General Court's jurisdiction in as much as it had failed to properly apply the facts available and the law within the ambit of the second plea in law, i.e. the infringement of Art. 8 Community Trademark Regulation 207/2009 (1) (hereinafter referred as CTMR). Had the General Court adhered to the fundamental principles of law, including the right to fair proceedings as well the right to state reasons in support of a decision, it must have granted the action brought before it. This holds the more as the General Court has confirmed the decisions of the Board of Appeal in full knowledge of the fact that the basis of the decisions, namely the existence of a national Benelux and French trademark, at the time of the decision under appeal before the General Court was neither proven by the Respondent nor were they given. Hence the General Court infringed Article 8 (1) CTMR as well as Article 53 (1) CTMR in that it had applied erroneous legal criteria in determining that the Appellant's trademark registrations were to be cancelled based upon prior Benelux and French trademark registrations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 406/13

Appeal brought on 23 July 2015 by Vichy Catalán, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-302/15 Vichy Catalán v OHIM — Hijos de Rivera (Fuente Estrella)

(Case C-399/15 P)

(2015/C 406/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Vichy Catalán, S.A. (represented by: R. Bercovitz Álvarez, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Hijos de Rivera (Fuente Estrella)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the order under appeal, replacing it with a declaration that the application brought by the appellant in Case T-302/15 before the General Court is admissible.

— Order any parties that may appear to defend order under appeal to pay the costs of the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The order of the General Court (Third Chamber) in which the application was dismissed as inadmissible is unlawful for the following reasons:

1. Infringement of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (no statute-barring when the existence of unforeseeable circumstances, or of force majeure, is proved), in two respects; a. the order was made without giving sufficient time for the appellant to prove the existence of unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure that delayed the sending of the hard copy of the application. That has deprived the appellant of the right to a fair hearing; and b. there were unforeseeable circumstances in the present case.

2. Incorrect interpretation of Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 429/8

Appeal brought on 26 January 2015 by Cantina Broglie 1 Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2014 in Case T-154/11 Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM

(Case C-34/15 P)

(2015/C 429/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Cantina Broglie 1 Srl (represented by: A. Rizzoli, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona

By order of 15 October 2015 the Court (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Cantina Broglie 1 Srl to bear its own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/22

Appeal brought on 9 November 2015 by SV Capital OÜ against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-660/14: SV Capital OÜ v European Banking Authority (EBA)

(Case C-577/15 P)

(2016/C 016/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: SV Capital OÜ (represented by: M. Greinoman, Lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Banking Authority (EBA), European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgement of the General Court dated 9 September 2015 in case T- 660/14 in part (1) declaring action against Decision C 2013 002 of the EBA inadmissible, (2) annulling Decision 2014-C1-02 of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities of 14 July 2014 in the part regarding admissibility of the appeal of the appellant and (3) of the costs;

— refer the case back to the General Court;

— order the defendant to bear costs of the appeal and order the intervener to bear its own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal against the judgment of the General Court dated 9 September 2015 in case T-660/14 the appellant relies on the following pleas and arguments in law:

The General Court ruled ultra petita;

The General Court infringed Article 60 (1) of Regulation 1093/2010/EU (1) as the application against Decision EBA C 2013 002 was timely, because it was first ruled on by the Board of Appeal of ESAs;

The General Court infringed Article 48 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (valid until 31 December 2014);

The General Court infringed Article 263 TFEU, as the application against Decision EBA C 2013 002 was timely on account of administrative process continuing until 14 July 2014;

The General Court infringed Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as the application against Decision EBA C 2013 002 was timely on account of unforeseeable circumstances;

The General Court infringed Article 263 TFEU and Articles 60 (1), 61 (1) of Regulation No 1093/2010/EU, as the action against Decision EBA C 2013 002 was admissible both because the decision had been addressed to the appellant and because the appellant had had direct and individual concern in the matter;

Decision EBA C 2013 002 is vitiated by errors of fact;

Decision EBA C 2013 002 is vitiated by misuse of discretion;

Decision EBA C 2013 002 is vitiated by breach of Article 39 (1) of Regulation 1093/2010/EU and Article 16 of the EBA Code of Good Administrative Behaviour in Decision EBA C 2013 002;

Decision EBA C 2013 002 is vitiated by breach of Articles 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 of the EBA Internal Rules in Decision EBA C 2013 002;

Decision EBA C 2013 002 is vitiated by misuse of power and unreasonable conduct of the EBA.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC OJ L 331, p. 12.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/20

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relaçăo do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 2 November 2015 — Alberto José Vieira de Azevedo and Others v CED Portugal Unipessoal, Lda, Institituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

(Case C-558/15)

(2016/C 016/26)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relaçăo do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Alberto José Vieira de Azevedo, Maria da Conceiçăo Ferreira da Silva, Carlos Manuel Ferreira Alves, Rui Dinis Ferreira Alves, Vitor José Ferreira Alves

Defendants: CED Portugal Unipessoal, Lda Institituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Acidentes de Trabalho

Intervener: Institituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Acidentes de Trabalho

Questions referred

1. Do recital 16A and Article 4 of the Fourth Motor Insurance Directive (Directive 2000/26/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005), in the light of paragraphs 4, 5 and 8 of Article 4 (transposed into Portuguese law by Article 43 of Decree Law No 522/85 of 31 December 1985, as amended by Decree Law No 72-A/2003 of 14 April 2003), permit a writ to be served on the representative of an insurance company which does not operate in the country in which an action was brought seeking damages as a result of a road traffic accident, on the basis of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles taken out in another European Union Member State?

2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does the question whether such a writ may be served depend on the specific terms of the representation agreement between the representative and the insurer?

(1) Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65).

(2) Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14).
1.

Is Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 2(1) and (2) and Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1), and also having regard to Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be interpreted as meaning that a) a provision in a collective agreement which provides for a longer period for incremental advancement for employment at the start of a career, thereby making it more difficult to advance to the next salary step, constitutes an indirect difference in treatment based on age, b) and, if such is the case, that such a rule is appropriate and necessary in the light of the limited professional experience at the start of a career?
3.

Must Article 273, Article 73 and Article 80 of Directive 2006/112/EC, taken together, having regard to the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, be interpreted as meaning that Member States are to be entitled, on the basis of national provisions which do not serve to transpose the VAT Directive, to determine taxable amounts for supplies of goods by a taxable person in a way which diverges from the general rule provided for in Article 73 of the VAT Directive and the exceptions expressly provided for in Article 80 of that directive, where the aim is, first, to prevent VAT evasion and, secondly, to determine a taxable amount for the transactions concerned that is a reliable as possible?
2.

If Question 1 cannot automatically be answered in the affirmative, and, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice, the examination of the lawfulness of such a restriction in the light of the provisions of Articles 5 to 9 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive must instead be conducted with reference to the circumstances of each individual case: Which factors would the case-by-case examination of the lawfulness of such a restriction in the light of the provisions of Articles 5 to 9 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, as required by the Court of Justice in the judgment in Case C-540/08, have to take into account in the case of a provision restricting the freedom to increase consumer prices?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/15

Action brought on 10 November 2015 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-581/15)

(2016/C 027/19)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková, J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to set up a national electronic register of road transport undertakings and failing to connect it to the national electronic registers of the other Member States, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC;

— order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its application, the Commission puts forward the following arguments:

The Czech Republic did not, by 30 June 2015, when the period laid down in the reasoned opinion expired, set up a national electronic register of road transport undertakings and did not connect it to the national electronic registers of the other Member States, as it should have done in accordance with Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC (1).

(1) OJ 2009 L 300, p. 51.