ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
If any of the above questions is answered in the negative:

Is Article 13A(1)(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes to be interpreted as meaning that the removal of the joint cartilage cells from the cartilage material taken from a human being and the subsequent cell multiplication constitute the ‘provision of medical care’ where the cells obtained from the cell multiplication are reimplanted in the donor?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/21

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes (France) lodged on 10 June 2009 — Scott SA, Kimberly Clark SNC, now Kimberly Clark SAS v City of Orléans

(Case C-210/09)

2009/C 205/36

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Scott SA, Kimberly Clark SNC, now Kimberly Clark SAS

Defendant: City of Orléans

Question referred

Is a possible annulment by the French administrative court of the assessments issued for the recovery of aid declared on 12 July 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities to be incompatible with the common market, (1) on the ground that those assessments infringe legislative provisions relating to the physical presentation of those assessments, given the ability of the competent administrative authority to remedy the vitiating defect in those decisions, such as to hinder the immediate and effective implementation of the Decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 12 July 2000, contrary to Article 14(3) of the Council Regulation of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty? (2)

(1) Commission Decision of 12 July 2000 on the state aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA Kimberly-Clark (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
(1)

What is the scope of the power given to Member States under Article 13(3) of Directive 2001/42/EC (1) on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (‘the SEA Directive’) to determine that it is not feasible to require an environmental assessment of a plan or programme for which the first formal preparatory act occurred before 21 July 2004 and the matters the national authorities may take into account, on a case by case basis, in reaching such a determination?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/18

Action brought on 19 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-226/09)

2009/C 220/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, A.-A. Gilly, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by attributing weightings to the award criteria following the closing date for the submission of the bids and by modifying them subsequent to an initial review of the submitted bids, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the principles of equal treatment and transparency as interpreted by the European court of Justice.

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the case of the award procedure in question the contracting authority produced a tender document where it was reasonably assumed that the award criteria would be applied in descending order of importance. Following the closing date for the submission of the bids it then decided to attribute relative weightings to the award criteria. Subsequent to an initial review of the submitted bids the evaluation team of the contracting authority discussed the possibility of varying these weightings and eventually modified them.

The relative weightings given to the award criteria after submission of the bids and the initial review modified the emphasis among the award criteria and attributed a materially different relative importance to that which a tenderer would have reasonably understood from the contract documents.

The award procedure in question being for the provision of services which are not enumerated in Annex II A to directive 2004/18/EC (1), the detailed procedural rules of that directive are not applicable. Accordingly, article 40 of the directive, pursuant to which contracting authorities have to specify in the invitation to tender, at the latest, the relative weightings of the award criteria, or the descending order of their importance, was also not applicable. Nevertheless, on the basis of the case law of the European Court of Justice, the contracting authority is bound to comply with the fundamental principles of the Treaty, including the principles of equal treatment and transparency.

The Commission submits that by modifying the award criteria during the award procedure the contracting authority, which was under the obligation to respect the fundamental rules and principles of the EC Treaty, infringed the principles of equal treatment and transparency as interpreted by the European Court of Justice.

(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 L 134, p. 114
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/21

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 1 July 2009 — SEYDALAND Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe GmbH & Co. v BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und –verwaltungs GmbH.

(Case C-239/09)

2009/C 220/40

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SEYDALAND Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe GmbH & Co

Defendant: BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und –verwaltungs GmbH

Question referred

Does Paragraph 5(1) points 2 and 3 of the FlächenerwerbsVO (Land Purchase Order), which was passed in application of Paragraph 4(3) point 1 of the AusglLeistG (Compensation Act) — ‘Where there are regional valuations of arable and pasture land, the value should be determined according to them. The regional valuations are published by the Bundesminister der Finanzen (Federal Finance Minister) in the Bundesanzeiger (Federal Gazette)’ — infringe Article 87 EC Treaty?
1.

(a) Must Articles 56 and 43 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a tax regime intended to eliminate economic double taxation of dividends which: (i) allows a parent company to set off against the advance payment, for which it is liable when it redistributes to its shareholders dividends paid by its subsidiaries, the tax credit applied to the distribution of those dividends if they come from a subsidiary established in France, (ii) but does not offer that option if those dividends come from a subsidiary established in another Member State of the European Community, since, in that case, that regime does not give entitlement to a tax credit applied to the distribution of those dividends by that subsidiary on the ground that such a regime would in itself, with respect to the parent company, infringe the principles of the free movement of capital or freedom of establishment? (b) If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must those articles be interpreted as meaning that they none the less preclude such a regime if the shareholders position must also be taken into account on the ground that, given the making of the advance payment, the amount of the dividends received from its subsidiaries and redistributed by the parent company to its shareholders will differ according to the location of those subsidiaries, in France or in another Member State of the European Communities, with the result that that regime deters shareholders from investing in the parent company and, therefore, affects the raising of capital by that company and is likely to deter that company from allocating capital to subsidiaries established in Member States other than France or from creating such subsidiaries in those States?
2.

Are acts consisting of the illicit importation of drugs ‘the same acts’, within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the Framework Decision, as membership of an organisation the purpose of which is illicit drugs trafficking, in so far as the investigating authorities had information and evidence, at the time at which sentence was passed in respect of such importation, which supported a strong suspicion of membership of such an organisation, but omitted for tactical reasons relating to their investigation to provide the relevant information and evidence to the court and to initiate criminal proceedings on that basis?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 244/2

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia (Poland) lodged on 23 July 2009 — Artur Weryński v Mediatel 4B

(Case C-283/09)

2009/C 244/03

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Artur Weryński

Defendant: Mediatel 4B

Question referred

Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, does the requested court have the right to demand from the requesting court an advance for witness expenses or reimbursement of the expenses paid to the witness heard, (1) or must it cover them out of its own financial resources?

(1) OJ 2001 L 174, p. 1.
1.

Is a contract relating to the supply of services (here, rescue services) under the terms of which the contracting authority does not make a direct payment of consideration to the contractor, but: (a) the usage fee for the services to be provided is set by negotiation between the contractor and third parties who are contracting authorities (here, social security institutions), (b) if agreement is not reached provision is made for a decision by an arbitration board established to this end, whose decision is subject to review by State courts, and (c) the fee is paid to the contractor not directly by the users, but in regular payments on account by a central settlement office whose services the contractor is statutorily required to call upon, to be regarded for that reason alone as a service concession within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the Directive as distinct from a service contract for the purposes of Article 1(2)(a) and (d) of the Directive?
—

declare that, by not having adopted the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/43/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC or, in any event, by not having communicated them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/33

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 30 July 2009 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie; other party: I. Oguz

(Case C-301/09)

2009/C 267/61

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

Other party: I. Oguz

Question referred

Must Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 [of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, taken by the Association Council set up under the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey] be interpreted as meaning that a new restriction, within the terms of that provision, includes a tightening in respect of a provision which entered into force after 1 December 1980, and which constituted a relaxation of the provision which had been in force on 1 December 1980, if that tightening does not amount to a deterioration vis-à-vis the provision which was in force on 1 December 1980?
9.

If it is sufficient for such use to fall within the scope of Article 5(l)(a) of the Trade Marks Directive and Article 9(l)(a) of the CTM Regulation and outside Article 7(1) of the Trade Mark Directive and Article 13(1) of the CTM Regulation that the advertisement or offer for sale is targeted at consumers in the territory covered by the trade mark: (a) does such use consist of or include ‘the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service’ within the meaning of Article 14(1) of the E-Commerce Directive? (b) if the use does not consist exclusively of activities falling within the scope of Article 14(1) of the E-Commerce Directive, but includes such activities, is the operator of the online marketplace exempted from liability to the extent that the use consists of such activities and if so may damages or other financial remedies be granted in respect of such use to the extent that it is not exempted from liability? (c) in circumstances where the operator of the online marketplace has knowledge that goods have been advertised, offered for sale and sold on its website in infringement of registered trade marks, and that infringements of such registered trade marks are likely to continue to occur through the advertisement, offer for sale and sale of the same or similar goods by the same or different users of the website, does this constitute ‘actual knowledge’ or ‘awareness’ within the meaning of Article 14(1) of the E-Commerce Directive?
3.

Must Article 15 (4) of Directive 2008/115/EC […] be interpreted as meaning that removal is not reasonably possible where: (a) at the time when a judicial review of the detention is conducted, the State of which the person is a national has refused to issue him with a travel document for his return and until then there was no agreement with a third country in order to secure the person’s entry there even though the administrative bodies of the Member State are continuing to make endeavours to that end? (b) at the time when a judicial review of the detention is conducted there was an agreement for readmission between the European Union and the State of which the person is a national, but, owing to the existence of new evidence, namely the person’s birth certificate, the Member State did not refer to the provisions of that agreement, if the person concerned does not wish to return? (c) the possibilities of extending the detention periods provided for in Article 15(6) of the Directive have been exhausted in the situation where no agreement for readmission has been reached with the third country at the time when a judicial review of his detention is conducted, regard being had to Article 15(6)(b) of the Directive?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/31

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 27 July 2009 — Francesco Guarnieri & Cie v Vandevelde Eddy VOF

(Case C-291/09)

2009/C 267/56

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Francesco Guarnieri & Cie

Defendant: Vandevelde Eddy VOF

Question referred

Do Articles 28, 29 and 30 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European Community preclude a claimant of Monegasque nationality, who lodges a claim in Belgium for payment of invoices relating to the delivery of ‘twister-glazen’ (glasses) and tea-lights with accessories, from being required, upon application by a defendant of Belgian nationality, to give security for the costs and damages arising from the proceedings which he may be ordered to pay?
3.

(a) Is Article 49 EC, in conjunction with Article 10 EC, to be interpreted as meaning that the checks carried out in a service provider’s State of establishment, and the safeguards provided there, must be taken into account in the State in which those services are provided, on the basis of the principle of mutual trust? (b) If so, is Article 49 EC to be interpreted further as meaning that, where the freedom to provide services is restricted for reasons in the public interest, consideration must be given to whether sufficient account is not already taken of this public interest in the legal provisions, checks and investigations to which a service provider is subject in the State in which he resides? (c) If so, must consideration be given — when examining the proportionality of a Member State’s rules imposing penalties for the cross-border provision of gaming services without a licence granted in that Member State — to the fact that the regulatory interests upon which the State in which the services are provided relies in order to justify the restriction of the fundamental freedom are already sufficiently taken into account in the State of establishment in strict authorisation and supervision procedures? (d) If so, must the referring court take account — in the context of its examination of the proportionality of such a restriction — of the fact that, in the State in which the service provider resides, the degree of control exercised by virtue of the provisions in question actually exceeds that of the State in which the services are provided? (e) Moreover, does the principle of proportionality in the case of a prohibition — on pain of criminal penalties — of games of chance that is imposed for regulatory reasons, such as the protection of players and the fight against crime, require the referring court to make a distinction between providers who offer games of chance without any authorisation whatsoever, and those who are established and licensed in other Member States of the European Union and who conduct their activities in the exercise of their freedom to provide services? (f) In the examination of the proportionality of a Member State’s rules prohibiting the cross-border provision of gaming services without a licence granted or authorisation given in that Member State, on pain of criminal penalties, must account be taken, lastly, of the fact that, as a result of objective, indirectly discriminatory barriers to entry, it has not been possible for a provider of games of chance who is duly licensed in another Member State to obtain a licence in the first Member State, and the licensing and supervisory procedure in the State of establishment offers a level of protection that is at least comparable to that of the first Member State?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/18

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Tripoleos (Greece) lodged on 10 July 2009 — Alfa Vita Vasilopoulos AE, formerly Trofo Super-Markets AE v Hellenic Republic and Local Authorities of the Prefecture of Lakonia

(Case C-257/09)

2009/C 282/35

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Diikitiko Protodikio Tripoleos

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alfa Vita Vasilopoulos AE, formerly Trofo Super-Markets AE

Defendants: The Hellenic Republic and Local Authorities of the Prefecture of Lakonia

By order of 7 August 2009 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities decided that Case C-257/09 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Tripoleos) should be removed from the register.
1.

Are Articles 18 and 18a of Directive 89/552/EEC, (1) as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, (2) to be regarded as being sufficiently precise and unconditional as to be capable, after the period for transposition has expired, of taking precedence over conflicting provisions of domestic law, of supplementing, on a correct interpretation of the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, the relevant national provisions, and of being implemented by an administrative authority, such as AGCOM, which is invested with the power to implement regulations under national law?
4.

In the light of Article 18(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which provides that every citizen of the Union has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, and in the light of the first paragraph of Article 12 of that Treaty, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of nationality, should those provisions be construed as prohibiting Member States from providing in national legal rules that the first names and surnames of individuals of different origin or nationality must be written, in documents indicating civil status, using Roman letters and not employing diacritical marks, ligatures or other modifications to the letters of the Roman alphabet which are used in a variety of languages?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 312/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht lodged on 2 October 2009 — Joao Filipe da Silva Martins v Bank Betriebskrankenkasse — Pflegekasse

(Case C-388/09)

2009/C 312/31

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundessozialgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Joao Filipe da Silva Martins

Defendant: Bank Betriebskrankenkasse — Pflegekasse

Question referred

Is it compatible with the primary and/or secondary law of the European Community on freedom of movement and social security for migrant workers (in particular Articles 39 and 42 EC and Articles 27 and 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1)) for a former worker who receives pensions from both his former State of employment and his home State and acquired an entitlement to care allowance in his former State of employment because he is reliant on care to forfeit the entitlement to care allowance after returning to his home State?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2
1.

Must point 6 in Part A of Annex III in connection with Article 7(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, (1) according to which the criterion for determining the successor state competent to take into account the insurance period completed by employed persons up to 31 December 1992 in the social security system of the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic is to remain applicable, be interpreted as precluding the application of a rule of national law according to which a Czech social security institution is to take into account fully, with regard to the entitlement to a benefit and the fixing of the amount thereof, the insurance period completed in the territory of the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic up to 31 December 1992, even though, according to the above mentioned criterion, it is a social security institution of the Slovak Republic which is competent to take it into account?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/42

Action brought on 30 November 2009 — Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-486/09)

2010/C 24/73

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and N. Bambara, Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 of 13 June 2002, (1) the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 9 of the regulation;

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 1 in conjunction with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 requires the Member States to take all the measures necessary to issue a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals by 14 August 2003.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 of 13 June 2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals (OJ 2002 L 157, p. 1).