ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/22

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Surjit Singh Bedi v Federal Republic of Germany, Federal Republic of Germany acting on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-312/17)

(2017/C 309/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Surjit Singh Bedi

Defendants: Federal Republic of Germany, Federal Republic of Germany acting on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Question referred

Is Article 2(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation to be interpreted as precluding a provision in a collective agreement under which the receipt of interim assistance — granted, on the basis of the basic remuneration laid down in the collective agreement, with the aim of ensuring a reasonable means of subsistence for workers who have lost their jobs until they are able to secure financial protection through entitlement to a pension under the statutory pension scheme — ends once the worker concerned is entitled to receive an early retirement pension, and the application of which is based on the possibility of receiving an early retirement pension on grounds of disability?

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 300/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 8 June 2017 — Fremoluc NV v Agentschap voor Grond- en Woonbeleid voor Vlaams-Brabant (Vlabinvest ABP) and Others, Intervener: Vlaams Gewest

(Case C-343/17)

(2017/C 300/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fremoluc NV

Defendants: Agentschap voor Grond- en Woonbeleid voor Vlaams-Brabant (Vlabinvest ABP), Vlaams Financieringsfonds voor Grond- en Woonbeleid voor Vlaams-Brabant (Vlaams Financieringsfonds), Vlaamse Maatschappij voor Sociaal Wonen NV (VMSW), Christof De Knop, Valérie De Knop, Melissa De Knop, Joanna De Keersmaecker, Marie-Jeanne Thielemans

Intervener: Vlaams Gewest (Regional Government Fers)

Questions referred

Should Articles 21, 45, 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 22 and 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States be interpreted as precluding a scheme under which a government body develops land with a view to offering plots and homes for sale and rental, on favorable terms, with priority being given to persons who have strong social, economic or socio-cultural ties with the area in which that body operates, and sets conditions with regard to income which the vast majority of those persons can fulfil, such as the scheme which results from reading the following in conjunction with each other:

— the besluit van de provincieraad van Vlaams-Brabant van 25 februari 2014 houdende het provinciaal reglement betreffende de werking en het beheer van het Agentschap voor Grond- en Woonbeleid voor Vlaams-Brabant (Decree of the Provincial Council of Flemish Brabant of 25 February 2014 on the provincial regulations on the operation and management of the Agency for Land and Housing Policy for Flemish Brabant) — ‘Vlabinvest APB’;

— Article 2/2 of the besluit van de Vlaamse regering van 29 september 2006 betreffende de voorwaarden voor de overdracht van onroerende goederen door de Vlaamse Maatschappij voor Sociaal Wonen en de sociale huisvestingsmaatschappijen ter uitvoering van de Vlaamse Wooncode (Decree of the Flemish Government of 29 September 2006 on the conditions for the transfer of property by the Flemish Social Housing Association and the social housing associations implementing the Flemish Housing Code) (and Article 17, second to sixth paragraphs, of the besluit van de Vlaamse regering van 12 October 2007 tot reglementering van het sociale huurstelsel ter uitvoering van titel VII van de Vlaamse Wooncode (Decree of the Flemish Government of 12 October 2007 for the regulation of the social rental system implementing Title VII of the Flemish Housing Code))?

(1) OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.
1.

In the case where an undertaking which, in cooperation with hire vehicle undertakings licensed for the carriage of persons, makes available a smartphone application through which users can place orders for chauffeur-driven hire vehicles, does that undertaking itself supply a service in the field of transport within the meaning of Article 58(1) TFEU and Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123 (1) if the organisational services provided by that undertaking are closely related to the service of carriage, in particular where that undertaking — determines the prices, the processing of payments and the conditions of carriage for the assignment of trips and — advertises the vehicles procured by the undertaking under its own brand designation and with the same uniform promotional offers? If the Court should answer Question 1 in the negative:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/30

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 24 July 2017 — Abraxis Bioscience LLC v Comptroller General of Patents

(Case C-443/17)

(2017/C 309/41)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Abraxis Bioscience LLC

Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents

Question referred

Is Article 3(d) of the SPC Regulation (1) to be interpreted as permitting the grant of an SPC where the marketing authorisation referred to in Article 3(b) is the first authorisation within the scope of the basic patent to place the product on the market as a medicinal product and where the product is a new formulation of an old active ingredient?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ L 152, p. 1)
1)

Should Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a holding company, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, is entitled to a full deduction of VAT on input services related to due diligence investigations before an envisaged, but not completed, sale of shares in a subsidiary to which the holding company supplies management and IT services that are subject to VAT?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 24 July 2017 — Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli v Pilato SpA

(Case C-445/17)

(2017/C 347/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Defendant: Pilato SpA

Question referred

Has CN heading 8704 of the Combined Nomenclature to be interpreted to the effect that it must include hearses? If the answer to the first question is in the negative, are hearses to be classified under CN heading 8705 or CN heading 8703?
Does a change in reservation to another flight constitute a situation covered by Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 August 2017 — Kreyenhop & Kluge GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hannover

(Case C-471/17)

(2017/C 374/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kreyenhop & Kluge GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

Question referred

Are fried noodles ‘dried’ pasta within the meaning of CN subheading 1902 3010? (1)

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/14

Appeal brought on 27 July 2017 by Vincent Piessevaux against the judgment delivered on 17 May 2017 in Case T-519/16 Vincent Piessevaux v Council of the European Union

(Case C-454/17 PP)

(2017/C 374/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Vincent Piessevaux (represented by: L. Ponteville, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2017 in Case T-519/16;

— grant the appellant the form of order sought by it in the proceedings before the General Court;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of the principle of equal treatment, Article 77 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to those Staff Regulations. The General Court erred in law by rejecting the plea of illegality of Staff Note 113/11 from the Appointing Authority of the Council, which introduces a derogation from the last sentence of the third paragraph of Article 9 of the Council Decision of 11 October 2011 adopting the general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials relating to the transfer of pension rights (‘the 2011 GIP’) — a derogation according to which the general implementing provisions adopted on 29 April 2004 (‘the 2004 GIP’) will continue to apply only in cases where the Appointing Authority has notified a proposal concerning a subsidy to the person concerned and where the latter has given his consent before the entry into force of the 2011 GIP. The reasoning of that rejection, set out in paragraphs 68 to 71 of the judgment under appeal, is contrary to the principle of equal treatment, Article 77 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to those Staff Regulations.

The second ground of appeal alleges distortion of the first part of the third ground of annulment relied on by the appellant, breach of the principle of the authenticity of documents, failure to state reasons and infringement of the principle of equal treatment. The General Court erred in law:

— in paragraphs 73, 74, 80 and 81 of the judgment under appeal, by distorting the first part of the third ground of annulment and by breaching the authenticity of the appellant’s pleadings, by wrongly stating that the appellant had invoked a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;

— in paragraphs 73 to 100 of the judgment under appeal, by failing to respond, in breach of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, to the first part of the third ground of annulment, which is based on infringement of the principle equality of treatment and not on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 18 August 2017 — Germanwings GmbH v Wolfgang Pauels

(Case C-501/17)

(2017/C 392/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Germanwings GmbH

Respondent: Wolfgang Pauels

Question referred

Is the damage to an aircraft tyre caused by a screw lying on the take-off or landing runway (foreign object damage/FOD) an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

(1) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/26

Appeal brought on 29 March 2017 by Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-187/16: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-158/17 P)

(2017/C 382/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: P. Koch, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 20 September 2017 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
1.

Must Article 16(2)(a) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC (1) of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification … be interpreted as precluding the withdrawal of a residence permit granted for the purpose of family reunification in the case where the acquisition of that residence permit was based on fraudulent information but the family member was unaware of the fraudulent nature of that information?
2.

Is the answer to the first question affected by the fact that the person who imported the products at issue from a Member State knew that the products containing denatured ethyl alcohol, manufactured on his order and supplied (sold) to final consumers in Lithuania by other persons, are consumed by certain individuals as alcoholic beverages and he therefore manufactured and labelled those products taking into account that fact, having the objective of selling as many of them as possible?
(4)

As regards the activity carried on by that company whose share capital is being disposed of under the reprivatisation procedure, must it be regarded as a service in the internal market subject to the provisions of Directive 2006/123/EC (1) due to the presence of the exception laid down in Article 2(2)(d) of that directive relating to services in the field of transport, and consequently, does that procedure also have to be shown to be subject to that directive?
4.

The second error of law and breach of procedure was to refuse to receive information necessary to understand the content of the registration certificate for the mark in suit. That document is publication ST.60 of the World Intellectual Property Office which sets out the meaning of the INID codes used universally in registration certificates issued by intellectual property offices including the EUIPO to identify the nature and meaning of the entries therein. The meaning of the INID codes can only be determined by reference to publication ST.60 or an equivalent reference source and the content of registration certificates can only be determined by reference to the meaning of the INID codes therein. The court wrongly treated the source of such information as evidence and consequently wrongly refused to receive the document or the information it contains when it is in fact a legal text equivalent to a dictionary. Had the court had regard to the interpretive tools presented to it, it would have appreciated that the registration certificate is for a figurative mark comprising the representation shown in the application form for registration. Such a mark had previously been correctly held by the First Board of Appeal of the EUIPO to have the requisite distinctive character to entitle it to registration and the General Court should accordingly have so determined.
3.

If application of the withholding tax at issue may in principle be allowed with regard to the free movement of capital: — do those provisions preclude the collection of withholding tax on dividends paid by a resident company to a loss-making non-resident company of another Member State where the latter ceases to trade without returning to a surplus, while a resident company placed in that situation is not taxed on such dividends? — must those provisions be interpreted as meaning that where taxation rules apply which treat dividends differently depending on whether they are paid to residents or non-residents, it is appropriate to compare the actual tax burden borne by each of them in respect of those dividends, so that a restriction on the free movement of capital resulting from the fact that those rules preclude for non-residents alone the deduction of expenses which are directly linked to the actual payment of the dividends may be regarded as being justified by the difference in the rate of tax between the ordinary-law tax payable in a subsequent year by residents and the withholding tax levied on dividends paid to non-residents, where that difference compensates, with regard to the amount of tax paid, for the difference in the tax base?
1.

Must Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person … be interpreted as meaning that only the Member State in which the application for international protection was first lodged can determine the Member State responsible, with the result that a foreign national has a legal remedy only in that Member State, under Article 27 of the Dublin Regulation, against the incorrect application of one of the criteria for determining responsibility set out in Chapter III of that Regulation, including Article 9?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 26 September 2017 — Związek Gmin Zagłębia Miedziowego w Polkowicach v Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

(Case C-566/17)

(2018/C 013/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Związek Gmin Zagłębia Miedziowego w Polkowicach

Defendant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Question referred

Do Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) and the principle of VAT neutrality preclude a national practice where the right is granted to a full deduction of input tax in connection with the purchase of goods and services used both for the purposes of a taxable person’s transactions falling within the scope of VAT (taxed and exempted) and falling outside the scope of VAT, owing to the absence in national law of methods and criteria for apportioning the input tax in relation to those types of transaction?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 September 2017 — Alekszij Torubarov v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

(Case C-556/17)

(2018/C 005/25)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pécsi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alekszij Torubarov

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

Question referred

Is Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that the Hungarian courts have the power to amend administrative decisions of the competent asylum authority refusing international protection, and also to grant such protection?

(1) OJ 2013, L 180, p. 60.
(1)

Must Articles 56 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding the provisions of the Zakon o ništetnosti ugovora o kreditu s međunarodnim obilježjima sklopljenih u Republici HrvatskOJ S neovlaštenim vjerovnikom (Law on the nullity of loan contracts with international features concluded in the Republic of Croatia with an unauthorised creditor; Narodne novine [Official Gazette] No 72/2017), in particular the provisions of Article 10 of that Law, which provides for the nullity of loan contracts and other legal acts that are consequential upon the loan contract concluded between a debtor (within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2, first indent, of the said Law) and an unauthorised creditor (within the meaning of Article 2, second indent, of the same Law) or are based on that contract, even if they were concluded before the entry into force of that Law, that nullity taking effect from the moment the contract was entered into, with the result that each of the contracting parties is obliged to return to the other party everything received by it on the basis of the void contract and, when that is impossible or when the nature of the action taken is incompatible with restoration, adequate pecuniary compensation must be paid, based on the prices in force when the judicial decision is delivered?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/17

Appeal brought on 19 September 2017 by Ukraine against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 July 2017 in Case T-346/14 DEP: Yanukovych v Council

(Case C-549/17 P)

(2018/C 022/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Other parties to the proceedings: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych, Council of the European Union, Republic of Poland, European Commission

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

When the protected designation of origin is of a geographical nature (Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation 510/2006) and when the products are the same or comparable, can the use of signs evoking the region with which a protected designation of origin is associated constitute evocation of the protected designation of origin itself, within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation 510/2006, which is prohibited even when the user of those signs is a producer established in the region associated with the protected designation of origin, but whose products are not protected by the designation of origin because they do not meet the requirements set out in the product specification, apart from the geographical provenance?
3.

(a) Is the buyer which sells on to a (foreign) third party a large consignment of goods bought from retailers and suppliers and returned by consumers, and/or goods that have become redundant, to be regarded as a holder which discards a consignment of goods, within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the Framework Directive? (b) Is the answer to Question 3.(1) affected by the amount of the purchase price to be paid by the third party to the buyer? (c) Would the answer to Question 3.(1) be different if the consignment of goods also contains some goods which have an easily repairable fault or defect? (d) Would the answer to Question 3.(1) be different if the consignment of goods also contains some goods which have a fault or defect of such extent or severity that the object in question is no longer, as a result, suitable or usable for its original purpose? (e) Is the answer to Questions 3.(3) or 3.(4) affected by the percentage of the whole consignment of the goods sold on to the third party that is made up of defective goods? If so, what percentage is the tipping point?