ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 439/23

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia of Castilla La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 2 October 2014 — Manuel Orrego Arias v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real

(Case C-456/14)

(2014/C 439/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia of Castilla La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Manuel Orrego Arias

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real

Question referred

The interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 3(1)(a) of Council Directive 2001/40/EC (1) of 28 May, and in particular on whether the term ‘offence punishable by a penalty involving deprivation of liberty of at least one year’, set out in that provision, refers to the penalty prescribed in abstracto for the offence in question or, on the contrary, to the actual term of imprisonment imposed on the convicted person and, in consequence, whether or not the decision of a Member State to expel a national of a third country sentenced to imprisonment of eight months would be recognised by other Member States.

(1) Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals

(OJ L 149, p. 34).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/11

Appeal brought on 21 March 2014 by Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina and Gęsina Wojciech against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 22 January 2014 in Case T-468/12, Faktor B. i W. Gęsina v Commission

(Case C-138/14 P)

(2014/C 462/18)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina and Gęsina Wojciech (represented by: H. Mackiewicz, adwocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 30 September 2014, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina und Gęsina Wojciech to bear its own costs.
Request submitted by Philippe Adam Krikorian (France) on 13 May 2014

(Case C-243/14)

(2015/C 016/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties to the main proceedings

Grégoire Krikorian and Others

Request concerning, first, the validity of Article 1(4) of Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law (OJ 2008 L 328, p. 55), and, secondly, the interpretation of that Council Framework Decision as well as Articles 6(1) and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and, finally, Articles 4(3) TEU and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 17 October 2014 — AAS Gjensidige Baltic, acting through the Lithuanian branch of AAS Gjensidige Baltic v UAB DK PZU Lietuva

(Case C-475/14)

(2015/C 007/20)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: AAS Gjensidige Baltic, acting through the Lithuanian branch of AAS Gjensidige Baltic

Other party to the proceedings: UAB DK PZU Lietuva

Questions referred

1. Does Article 14(b) of Directive 2009/103/EC (1) lay down a conflict-of-law rule, which ratione personae should be applied not only to the victims of road traffic accidents but also to the insurers of the vehicle responsible for the damage caused in the accident, for the purposes of determining the law applicable to the relations between them, and is this provision a special rule with respect to the rules on the applicable law laid down in the Rome I (2) and Rome II (3) regulations?

2. If the first question is answered in the negative, it is important to ascertain whether the legal relations between the insurers in the present case fall within the concept of ‘contractual obligations’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the Rome I regulation. If the legal relations between the insurers do fall within the concept of ‘contractual obligations’, the important question is then whether those relations fall within the category of insurance contracts (legal relations) and the law applicable to them should be determined in accordance with Article 7 of the Rome I regulation.

3. If the first two questions are answered in the negative, it is important to ascertain whether, in the case of a claim for recourse, the legal relations between the insurers of vehicles used in a combination fall within the concept of a ‘non-contractual obligation’ within the meaning of the Rome II regulation and whether or not these relations should be treated as derivative legal relations arising as a result of the road traffic accident (delict), when determining the applicable law in accordance with Article 4(1) of the Rome II regulation. In a case such as the present case, should the insurers of the vehicles used in a combination be treated as debtors who are liable for the same claim within the meaning of Article 20 of the Rome II regulation, and should the law applicable to the relations between them be determined according to that rule?

(1) Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6).

(3) Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40).
2.

If such an award is regarded as compatible with Community law, can ‘the genuine reimbursement of costs’ also cover the ‘indirect and general’ costs relating to the activities carried out on a regular basis by the voluntary organisation, such as the special maintenance of the vehicles used to provide the service, meals for personnel, remuneration for the administrative staff and the services coordinator, and the necessary telephonic and radio links between the ambulance despatch centre and the voluntary organisation’s communications points?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 34/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Torino (Italy) lodged on 7 November 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Stefano Burzio

(Case C-497/14)

(2015/C 034/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Torino

Party to the main proceedings

Stefano Burzio

Question referred

On a proper construction of Article 4 of [Protocol No 7 to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms] and Article 50 [of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], is the provision made under Article 10a of Legislative Decree No 74 [of 10 March 2000] consistent with Community law, in so far as it permits the criminal liability of a person on whom an irreversible administrative penalty under Article 13(1) of Legislative Decree No 471 [of 18 December 1997] has already been imposed (through the application of a surtax) to be assessed in respect of the same act or omission (non-payment of withholding tax)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (Italy) lodged on 6 November 2014 — Antonio Tita and Others v Ministero della Giustizia and Others

(Case C-495/14)

(2015/C 026/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Antonio Tita, Alessandra Carlin, Piero Constantini

Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Segretario Generale del Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (TRGA)

Question referred

Do the principles fixed by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 (1) and by Council Directives 89/665/EEC (2) and 92/13/EEC (3) , with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts, preclude a provision of national law, such as that on the lump sum payable in respect of court fees laid down in Articles 9, 13(6)bis and (6)bis1 and 14(3)ter of Decree of the President of the Republic No 115 of 30 May 2002 (as progressively amended by subsequent legislative interventions), and in Article 1(27) of Law No 228 of 24 December 2012, which laid down high amounts for the lump sum payable for access to administrative proceedings relating to public procurement procedures.

(1) Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31).

(2) Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).

(3) Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/22

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Torino (Italy) lodged on 10 November 2014 — Ford Motor Company v Wheeltrims srl

(Case C-500/14)

(2015/C 046/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Torino

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ford Motor Company

Defendant: Wheeltrims srl

Questions referred

1) Is it compatible with [EU] law to interpret Article 14 of Directive 98/71 (1) and Article 110 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 (2) as conferring on producers of replacement parts and accessories the right to use trade marks registered by third parties in order to allow the end purchaser to restore the original appearance of a complex product and, therefore, also when the proprietor of the trade mark applies the distinctive sign in question to a replacement part or accessory intended to be mounted on the complex product in such a way that it is externally visible and thus contributes to the external appearance of the complex product?

2) Is the repair clause set out in Article 14 of Directive 98/71 and Article 110 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 to be interpreted as constituting a subjective right for third-party producers of replacement parts and accessories and, if so, does that subjective right include the right for such third parties to use the trade mark registered by another party in respect of replacement parts and accessories, by way of derogation from the rules laid down in Regulation No 207/2009 (3) and Directive (EEC) 89/104 (4) and, therefore, when the proprietor of the trade mark also applies the distinctive sign in question to a replacement part or accessory intended to be mounted on the complex product in such a way that it is externally visible and thus contributes to the external appearance of the complex product?

(1) Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs (OJ 1998 L 289, p. 28).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

(4) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).
2)

If Regulation 1186/2009 precludes two normal places of residence and an assessment of all the circumstances does not suffice to determine the normal place of residence, on the basis of which rule or which criteria is it necessary to determine, for the purposes of the application of that regulation, in which country the person concerned has his normal place of residence in a case such as the present case in which that person has both personal and occupational ties in the third country and personal ties in the Member State?
(a)

Is the first half-sentence of Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), taking into account the existing protection of intellectual property as a fundamental right forming part of the right to property (Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and the provisions of the following directives on the protection of intellectual property, in particular copyright: — Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society; — Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, and taking into account the freedom of information and the fundamental right under EU law of the freedom to conduct a business (Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a decision of the national court, in substantive proceedings, whereby the access provider is ordered, with costs, to refrain in future from enabling third parties to make a particular copyright-protected work or parts thereof available for electronic retrieval from online exchange platforms via a specific internet connection and it is left to the access provider to determine what specific measures he will take in order to comply with that order?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 9 December 2014 — Genentech Inc. v Hoechst GmbH, formerly Hoechst AG, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-567/14)

(2015/C 073/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Genentech Inc.

Defendant: Hoechst GmbH, formerly Hoechst AG, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

Question referred

‘Must the provisions of Article 81 of the Treaty (now Article 101 TFEU) be interpreted as precluding effect being given, where patents are revoked, to a licence agreement which requires the licencee to pay royalties for the sole use of the rights attached to the licensed patent?’
2.

Must the deduction of compensation referred to in the second sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 12 (Further compensation) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 be interpreted as being required only in relation to the passenger’s right to further compensation from the operating air carrier or also in relation to the passenger’s right to further compensation from the tour operator?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 81/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 December 2014 — Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH v Amazon EU Sàrl and Others

(Case C-572/14)

(2015/C 081/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH

Defendants: Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon.de GmbH, Amazon Logistik GmbH, Amazon Media Sàrl

Question referred

Does a claim for payment of ‘fair compensation’ under Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (1) which, in accordance with Austrian law, is directed against undertakings that are first to place recording material on the domestic market on a commercial basis and for consideration constitute a claim arising from ‘tort, delict or quasi-delict’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (2)?

(1) OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.

(2) OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
1.

By its first ground, the appellant challenges the judgment under appeal on the basis of the incorrect assessment of the principle that administrative proceedings must take place within a reasonable time and the principle of legitimate expectations, in so far as concerns the part of the contested decision in which the recovery of the aid granted is ordered.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/13

Appeal brought on 12 December 2014 by Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-297/13: Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-579/14 P)

(2015/C 311/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: C. Weil, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

By order of 4 June 2015 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) has dismissed the appeal and ordered Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 127/6

Appeal brought on 4 February 2014 by Recaro Holding GmbH, formerly Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2013 in Case T-524/12: Recaro Holding GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-57/14 P)

(2015/C 127/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Recaro Holding GmbH, formerly Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH (represented by: J. Weiser, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

By order of 14 January 2015 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) has dismissed the appeal and ordered Recaro Holding GmbH to bear its own costs.
2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: (a) What criterion or what perspectives should the national court apply, when assessing its jurisdiction on the basis of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, in order to determine whether in the present case there has been financial damage which is the direct result of unlawful conduct (‘initial financial damage’ or ‘direct financial damage’) or whether there has been financial damage which is the result of initial damage which occurred elsewhere or damage which has resulted from damage which occurred elsewhere (‘consequential damage’ or ‘derived financial damage’)? (b) What criterion or what perspectives should the national court apply, when assessing its jurisdiction on the basis of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, in order to determine where, in the present case, the financial damage — whether it be direct or derived financial damage — occurred or is deemed to have occurred?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/20

Appeal brought on 6 February 2015 by Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, S.L. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-428/10 and T-577/10 and in Case T-441/12 Trenzas y Cables de Acero v Commission

(Case C-55/15 P)

(2015/C 118/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, S.L. (represented by: F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-428/10 and T-577/10 and in Case T-441/12 Trenzas y Cables de Acero v Commission;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal.

The appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in assessing the legal interest of Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC in bringing proceedings, as regards both the action for annulment in Case T-577/10 against the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2010 amending Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel), and the amendment of the pleas in law and forms of order sought in Case T-428/10 in relation to the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2010 amending Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel).
1.

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10], to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?
1.

What is the scope of Article 27 of Regulation No 604/2013 (1), whether or not in conjunction with recital 19 in the preamble to that regulation? Does an asylum seeker — in a situation such as that in the present case, in which the foreign national was confronted with the request for assumption of responsibility to deal with the asylum application only after that request had been agreed to, and that foreign national submits evidence, subsequent to the agreement to that request, which could lead to the conclusion that it is the requesting Member State, and not the requested Member State, which is responsible for examining the application for asylum, and the requesting Member State subsequently does not examine those documents or forward them to the requested Member State — have the right, pursuant to that article, to an (effective) legal remedy against the application of the criteria for determining the Member State responsible laid down in Chapter III of Regulation No 604/2013?
2.

Must Article 48(2)(a)(ii), second indent, of Directive 2004/18/EC be interpreted to the effect that it precludes the application of rules laid down by a contracting authority which do not allow an economic operator to provide evidence of the provision of services by a declaration signed by that operator, unless the latter proves that it is impossible or very difficult to obtain a declaration from the private purchaser?
3.

Infringement of the principle of equal treatment. The principle of non-discrimination has been infringed in the fixing of a combined TAC for the two species of grenadier, since in comparison with the cases referred to, the principle of relative stability was not complied with and the TAC was imposed unilaterally by the European institutions without taking account of Spain’s legitimate demands.