ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/18

Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by SPLIA against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission

(Case C-232/13 P)

2013/C 207/30

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Società per l’industria alberghiera (SPLIA) (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’

Form of order sought

— Set aside the order of the General Court under appeal

— Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly, — annul, in so far as is reasonable and in so far as it concerns the appellant, European Commission Decision No 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995; — in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the relief granted and in so far as it requires interest to be added to the amount of relief to be recovered for the periods taken into consideration in the judgment;

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant raises nine grounds of appeal:

First ground: the General Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the measures in question did not confer any advantage upon their beneficiaries given their compensatory nature.

Second ground: the Court erred in not excluding, or at least assessing, the likelihood that the measures in question would affect competition and intra-Community trade.

Third ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(2)(b) EC (now Article 107(2)(b) TFEU) and Article 87(3)(b) EC (now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU) were inapplicable.

Fourth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) was inapplicable.

Fifth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(3)(d) and (e) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) and (e) TFEU) were inapplicable.

Sixth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 86(2) EC (now Article 106(2) TFEU) was inapplicable.

Seventh ground: the Court erred in not recognising the existence of the aid, thus infringing Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108(3) TFEU) and Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1)

Eighth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the recovery order.

Ninth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the addition of interest.

(1) 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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 18 April 2013 — Cruciano Siragusa v Regione Sicilia — Soprintendenza Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Palermo

(Case C-206/13)

2013/C 207/17

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cruciano Siragusa

Defendant: Regione Sicilia — Soprintendenza Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Palermo

Questions referred

Do Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of proportionality, as a general principle of European Union law, preclude the application of a provision of national law such as Article 167(4)(a) of Legislative Decree No 42 of 2004, under which a ‘landscape compatibility clearance’ [(autorizzazione paesaggistica)] may not be issued by way of retrospective regularisation in any cases where human activity has resulted in an increase in floor area and volume, regardless of whether a specific appraisal has been undertaken as to whether the activity in question is compatible with the features of the landscape of the particular site which merit protection?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 215/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 10 June 2013 — Gérard Fenoll v Centre d’aide par le travail La Jouvene, Association de parents et d’amis de personnes handicapées mentales (APEI) d’Avignon

(Case C-316/13)

2013/C 215/17

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: Gérard Fenoll

Respondents in cassation: Centre d’aide par le travail La Jouvene, Association de parents et d’amis de personnes handicapées mentales (APEI) d’Avignon

Questions referred

1. Must Article 3 of Directive 89/391/EEC, (1) to which Article 1 of Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003, (2) determining the scope thereof, refers, be interpreted as meaning that a person placed in a work rehabilitation centre can be classified as a ‘worker’ within the meaning of that Article 3?

2. Must Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that a person, such as described in the previous question, can be classified as a ‘worker’ within the meaning of that Article 31?

3. Can a person, such as described in the first question, rely directly on the rights conferred on her or him by the Charter in order to obtain an entitlement to paid leave if national legislation does not provide for any such entitlement, and must the national courts, in order to ensure that those rights are fully effective, set aside any contrary provision of national law?

(1) Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).

(2) Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 233/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 21 June 2013 — bpost SA v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

(Case C-340/13)

2013/C 233/08

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: bpost SA

Defendant: Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

Questions referred

1. Is the fifth indent of Article 12 of Directive 1997/67/EC, (1) as amended by Directives 2002/39/EC (2) and 2008/6/EC (3), to be interpreted as imposing an obligation of non-discrimination, particularly in relations between the universal service provider and intermediaries, with regard to the operational discounts granted by that provider, the pure quantity discounts remaining subject to the application of the fourth indent of Article 12?

2. If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative, does the pure quantity discount accord with the obligation of non-discrimination laid down under the fourth indent of Article 12 where the differentiation in price which it creates is based on an objective factor having regard to the relevant geographical and services market and it does not create an effect of exclusion or of inducing loyalty?

3. If the reply to the first question is in the negative, does the quantity discount granted to the intermediary breach the principle of non-discrimination under the fifth indent of Article 12 where the its size does not equal the discount granted to a sender who posts an equivalent number of items, but equals all the discounts granted to all the senders on the basis of the number of items of each sender whose postal items are consolidated?

(1) Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14).

(2) Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services (OJ 2002 L 176, p. 21).

(3) Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services (OJ 2008 L 52, p. 3)
—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Commission Directive 2010/61/EU of 2 September 2010 adapting for the first time the Annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the inland transport of dangerous goods to scientific and technical progress (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/20

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 7 June 2013 — O. Tümer v Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-311/13)

2013/C 252/31

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: O. Tümer

Defendant: Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Question referred

Should the Insolvency Directive, (1) in particular Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that Directive, given its basis in Article 137(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 153(2) of the TFEU), be interpreted as meaning that a national rule such as Article 3(3) and Article 61 of the [Werkloosheidswet], under which a foreign national who is a national of a third country and who does not hold a valid residence permit in the Netherlands within the meaning of Article 8(a) to (e) and (l) of the Vreemdelingenwet 2000 is not regarded as an employee, is incompatible with it, even in a case such as that of the appellant, who has applied for an insolvency benefit, who under civil law must be regarded as an employee and who meets the other conditions for it to be granted?

(1) Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/30

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 28 June 2013 — International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents

(Case C-364/13)

2013/C 260/54

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)(United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: International Stem Cell Corporation

Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents

Question referred

Are unfertilised human ova whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis, and which, in contrast to fertilised ova, contain only pluripotent cells and are incapable of developing into human beings included in the term ‘human embryos’ in Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44/EC (1) on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions?

(1) Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions

OJ L 213, p. 13
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/33

Appeal brought on 3 July 2013 by Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) against the judgment delivered on 19 April 2013 by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-53/11 Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) v Commission

(Case C-381/13 P)

2013/C 260/61

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) (represented by: N. Morais Sarmento and L. Pinto Monteiro, advogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order the Commission to bear its own costs in addition to those incurred by the appellant.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Failure to adopt a decision within a reasonable period of time

(i) The proceedings are time-barred

The appellant submits that the contested decision was adopted after the four-year limitation period for proceedings, as set out in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95, (1) had expired. Equally, even if there had been a possible interruption of the limitation period for proceedings, more than twice the limitation period had expired without any decision being taken in accordance with the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95. Since the corresponding right was thus time-barred, the contested decision should be declared unlawful and unenforceable.

(ii) Infringement of the principle of legal certainty

The appellant considers that the fact that the Commission allowed more than 20 years to pass between the alleged irregularities and the adoption of the contested decision amounts to a failure to observe the principle of legal certainty. That fundamental principle of European Union law provides that all individuals have the right to have their cases dealt with by the European Union institutions within a reasonable period of time.

(iii) Infringement of the rights of the defence

The appellant considers that its rights of defence have been infringed in so far as, given that more than 20 years had passed between the alleged irregularities and the adoption of the final decision, the appellant was deprived of its right to submit its observations in good time, namely at a point in time when it was still in possession of documents enabling it to justify the expenses which the Commission deemed ineligible.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).
1.

Should Article 76 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community be interpreted to mean that the Czech Republic is a state competent to provide a family benefit — the parental allowance — in circumstances such as those of the present case, i.e. where the applicant and her husband and child live in France, the husband works there, it is the place in which their interests are centred, and the applicant has drawn fully on the PAJE (prestation d’accueil du jeune enfant) family benefit in France? If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
1.

Where, under the Air Quality Directive (2008/50/EC) (1) (‘the Directive’), in a given zone or agglomeration conformity with the limit values for nitrogen dioxide was not achieved by the deadline of 1 January 2010 specified in annex XI of the Directive, is a Member State obliged pursuant to the Directive and/or article 4 TEU to seek postponement of the deadline in accordance with article 22 of the Directive?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou (Cyprus) lodged on 16 July 2013 — Cypra Limited v Republic of Cyprus

(Case C-402/13)

2013/C 274/23

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cypra Limited

Defendant: Republic of Cyprus, represented by the Minister for Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment and the Director of Veterinary Services

Questions referred

1. Do the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 (1) confer upon the competent authority a discretion to determine the time at which a particular slaughter of animals takes place, in view of its obligation to appoint an official veterinarian for the purposes of carrying out supervision in relation to the slaughter of animals, or is it obliged to appoint such a veterinarian at the time that the slaughter will take place, as determined by the slaughterer?

2. Do the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 confer upon the competent authority a discretion to refuse to appoint an official veterinarian for the carrying out of veterinary supervision of the lawful slaughter of animals when it is informed that the slaughter of animals will take place at a particular time, at a licensed slaughterhouse?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 206).
(a)

Is Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an action in which a defendant domiciled in the same State as the court and other defendants domiciled in other Member States of the European Union are together the subject of an application for disclosure and damages on account of a single and continuous infringement of Article 81 EC/Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement which has been established by the European Commission and committed in several Member States and in which the defendants have participated in different places and at different times, it is expedient to hear and determine those applications together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 8 July 2013 — VAEX Varkens- en Veehandel BV v Productschap Vee en Vlees

(Case C-387/13)

2013/C 274/16

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: VAEX Varkens- en Veehandel BV

Respondent: Productschap Vee en Vlees

Questions referred

1. Does the European legislative framework applicable here [ (1) (2) (3) (4)] preclude, in a case such as the present [period of validity of an export licence]: (a) payment of the refund applied for; (b) release of the security lodged in connection with the licence application?

2. If one or both questions is/are answered in the affirmative, does that same framework then preclude ex post facto regularisation, in such a way that the exported quantity can still be entered on the licence and, on that basis, the refund still paid and/or, as the case may be, the security lodged still released?

3. If Question 2 is also answered in the affirmative: is that same framework then invalid in so far as it contains no provision for payment of a refund and/or, as the case may be, release of the security lodged to be granted in a case such as the present, in which use was made of a licence one day too early?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 114, p. 3).

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 382/2008 of 21 April 2008 on rules of application for import and export licences in the beef and veal sector (Recast) (OJ 2008 L 115, p. 10).

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 of 7 July 2009 on laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (Recast) (OJ 2009 L 186, p. 1).
2.

Does Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers preclude a creditor from being able to prove that it has performed its obligations correctly and in full solely by means of a standard term in the credit agreement, whereby the consumer acknowledges the performance of those obligations, without that term being supported by documents issued by the creditor and supplied to the borrower?
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: Is Article 2 of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that the content of the services offered by the retailer must be specified in exactly the same way as the goods that a retailer markets? (a) Does it suffice for the purposes of specification of the services if (aa) just the field of services in general or general indications, (bb) just the class(es) or (cc) each specific individual service is stated? (b) Do these details then take part in determining the date of filing or is it possible, where general indications or classes are stated, to make substitutions or additions?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2013 — Criminal proceedings against Markus D.

(Case C-358/13)

2013/C 325/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Party/parties to the main proceedings

Markus D.

Question referred

Is Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83/EC of 6 November 2001, (1) as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of 31 March 2004, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that substances or combinations of substances within the meaning of that provision which merely modify — that is, do not restore or correct — human physiological functions are to be regarded as medicinal products only if they are of therapeutic benefit or at any rate bring about a modification of bodily functions along positive lines? Consequently, do substances or combinations of substances which are consumed solely for their — intoxication-inducing — psychoactive effects, and in the process also have an effect which at least poses a risk to health, fall under the definition of ‘medicinal product’ contained in the directive?

(1) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2011 L 311, p. 67).

(2) Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34).
1.

Are two proceedings brought ‘between the same parties’, within the meaning of Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, (1) where in one set of proceedings the child makes a claim against the father for past and current maintenance, and the father, in divorce proceedings, seeks a determination of his maintenance obligation relating to that child and of payments to be made to the mother after the divorce?
6.

Manifest legal errors of assessment in respect of the procedural rules which safeguard the rights of the defence and equality of arms between the European Commission and the ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’. The General Court erroneously held that the submitted worksheets did not meet the requirements imposed by the provisions of the contract and consequently determined that they were to be rejected as a means of proof and, further, that the submitted correspondence was not adequate evidence of the hours of work which were in fact provided by the persons employed.