ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/3

Action brought on 5 April 2013 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-172/13)

2013/C 207/04

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels, R. Lyal, agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by imposing conditions on cross-border group relief that make it virtually impossible in practice to obtain such relief and by restricting such relief to periods after 1 April 2006, the United Kingdom has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Areaorder United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following the judgment in Case C-446/03 Marks & Spencer, the United Kingdom amended its legislation governing the manner in which the losses suffered by companies which are members of a group may be transferred and used by another member of the group in order to reduce its tax liability (group relief rules). The provisions governing losses of non-resident companies are now contained in Part 5 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010.

Under the United Kingdom legislation now in force, a group company may obtain a tax credit for the losses of a non-resident group member only if the latter has no possibility of relief in its State of residence. In relation to the possibility of future relief the United Kingdom legislation makes it virtually impossible to demonstrate compliance with that condition, since that possibility falls to be determined ‘as at the time immediately after the end’ of the tax year in which the loss was suffered. That condition is for all practical purposes impossible to meet. It follows that the legislation precludes any relief at all for the losses of a non-resident subsidiary, contrary to the freedom of establishment as interpreted in Case C-446/03 Marks & Spencer.

Secondly, the new rules on group relief for foreign losses apply only to losses suffered after 1 April 2006, the date of entry into force of those rules. That temporal limitation (that is to say, the exclusion of relief under the legislation for losses suffered before that date) is contrary to the freedom of establishment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/27

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale des Bouches-du-Rhône (France) lodged on 13 May 2013 — Anouthani Mlalali v CAF des Bouches-du-Rhône

(Case C-257/13)

2013/C 207/43

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale des Bouches-du-Rhône

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anouthani Mlalali

Defendant: CAF des Bouches-du-Rhône

Question referred

Must Article 11 of Directive 2003/109/EC (1) of 25 November 2003 be interpreted as precluding the requirements laid down by Articles L.512 and D.512-2 of the Code de la sécurité sociale français (French Social Security Code)?

(1) Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).
4.

In the further alternative, … in the event that the holding of the office of President of an Italian Port Authority by a national of another Member State of the European Union does not fall within the scope of any of the above provisions, may it nevertheless be regarded, more generally, in accordance with Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as a prerogative coming under the right of Community citizens to ‘work, to exercise the right of establishment and to provide services in any Member State’, irrespective of the specific ‘sectoral’ provisions laid down in Article 45 and Article 49 et seq. TFEU, and in Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, and is the prohibition under national law in relation the holding of that office accordingly inconsistent with the equally general prohibition on discrimination on grounds of nationality laid down in Article 21(2) of that Charter?’
1.

Are Article 101 TFEU (formerly Article 81 of the EC Treaty, read in conjunction with Article 10 thereof) and Article 4(3) TEU compatible with rules such as those laid down in the regulation on the tariff for Procuradores de los Tribunales (Real Decreto 1373/2003 of 7 November 2003), under which procuradores are remunerated in accordance with a minimum tariff or scale, which can be varied, upwards or downwards, only by 12 % — in light of the fact that it is not really possible for the authorities of the Member State, including the courts, to depart from the minimum levels laid down in the statutory scale if exceptional circumstances arise?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/7

Action brought on 7 June 2013 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-317/13)

(2013/C 226/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— annul Council Decision 2013/129/EU of 7 March 2013 on subjecting 4-methylamphetamine to control measures; (1)

— maintain the effects of Council Decision 2013/129/EU until it is replaced by a new measure adopted in the prescribed manner;

— order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First of all, the Parliament points out that the preamble to the contested decision refers to the following legal bases: Article 8(3) of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10 May 2005 on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances (2) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Parliament infers therefrom that the Council implicitly refers to Article 34(2)(c) of the previous Treaty on European Union.

The Parliament relies on two pleas in law in support of its action for annulment.

In the first place, the Parliament claims that the Council based its decision on a legal basis, Article 34(2)(c) EU, which was repealed when the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force. Accordingly, the contested decision is no longer based solely on Decision 2005/387/JHA. The latter constitutes a secondary legal basis and is thus unlawful.

In the second place, and in the light of the foregoing, the Parliament considers that the legislative process is vitiated by infringements of essential procedural requirements. First, if Article 34(2)(c) EU had been applicable, the Parliament should have been consulted before the adoption of the contested decision in accordance with Article 39(1) EU. However, the Parliament claims that that was not the case. Secondly, if it is held that the applicable provisions are those derived from the Treaty of Lisbon, the Parliament should have been involved in the legislative procedure on the basis of Article 83(1) TFEU. In either case, since the Parliament was not involved in the adoption of the contested decision, the latter is vitiated by an infringement of essential procedural requirements.

Finally, if the Court decides to annul the contested decision, the Parliament considers that it would be necessary, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 264 TFEU, to maintain the effects of the contested decision until it is replaced by a new measure adopted in the prescribed manner.

(1) OJ 2013 L 72, p. 11.

(2) OJ 2005 L 172, p. 32.
1.

Does the shortening of a timetable for implementation from 1 May 2003 to 15 April 2003, as occurred on the introduction of paragraph 9 of the Djurskyddsförordningen (2003:105), give rise to an obligation on Sweden, as a Member State, to communicate the draft regulation again in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34/EC?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 233/2

Action brought on 21 May 2013 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-277/13)

2013/C 233/02

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and F.W. Bulst, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court of Justice should:

— declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures for the organisation of a selection procedure for suppliers authorised to provide groundhandling, ramp handling and freight and mail handling services at Lisbon, Porto and Faro airports, in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 96/67/EC, (1) the Portuguese State has failed to comply with Article 11 of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports;

— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Having failed to open up its groundhandling market to suppliers, the Portuguese State has acted contrary to European Union law.

Having limited the number of groundhandling service suppliers authorised to provide groundhandling, ramp handling and freight and mail handling services, the Portuguese State was required to organise a selection procedure in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 96/67/EC. The procedure should also have been organised following consultation with the Airport Users’ Committee. Moreover, pursuant to Article 11(1)(d) of Directive 96/67/EC, suppliers are to be selected for a maximum period of seven years.

(1) OJ 1996 L 272, p. 36.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 226/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală v Cătălin Ienciu

(Case C-313/13)

(2013/C 226/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală

Defendant: Cătălin Ienciu

Question referred

If a vendor has been reclassified as a taxable person for VAT purposes and the consideration for (price of) the supply of the immovable property has been determined by the parties, without any reference to VAT, must Articles 73 and 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the taxable amount is:

(a) the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property determined by the parties, less the rate of VAT, or

(b) the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property agreed by the parties?

(1) Council Directive of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/17

Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza, a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-96/10: Rütgers Germany GmbH and others v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

(Case C-290/13 P)

2013/C 252/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza, a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, avocat)

Other party: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-96/10; and

— annul Decision ED/68/2009 of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) (the ‘Contested Decision’) identifying Anthracene Oil (Paste) as a substance to be included on the Candidate List in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (‘REACH’) (1), or

— alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the appellants’ application for annulment; and

— order the respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants submit that, in dismissing their application for partial annulment in respect of the contested decision, the General Court breached Community law. In particular, the appellants contend that the General Court committed a number of errors in its interpretation of the legal framework as applicable to the appellants’ situation. That resulted in the General Court making a number of errors in law; in particular:

— in finding that the case related to complex scientific and technical facts and that the identification of anthracene oil (paste) as having PBT and vPvB properties on the basis of its constituents present in a concentration of at least 0.1% was not vitiated by a manifest error;

— the constituents do not have to be individually identified as having PBT or vPvB properties in a separate ECHA decision based on a thorough assessment for that purpose;

— Article 59(3) and Annex XV of REACH were not breached because information on alternative substances was not included in the Annex XV dossier; and

— that there was no breach of the principle of equal treatment

For these reasons the appellants claim that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-96/10 should be set aside and the contested decision should be annulled.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/23

Request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 18 June 2013 — Ilie Nicolae Nicula v Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-331/13)

2013/C 260/40

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ilie Nicolae Nicula

Defendants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Question referred

Are the provisions of Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 17, 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 110 TFEU, the principle of legal certainty and the principle prohibiting reformatio in peius, both affirmed in Community law and in the case-law of the Court of Justice, (1) to be interpreted as precluding legislation such as Emergency Order No 9/2013?

(1) Case C-381/97 Belgocodex [1998] ECR I-8153, and Case 10/78 Belbouab [1978] ECR 1915.
2.

Can the requirement that the agreement conferring jurisdiction be in written form, as laid down in Article 23(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001, be said to be satisfied where such an agreement is inserted into the document (Information Memorandum) that has been created unilaterally by a bond issuer, with the effect that the prorogation of jurisdiction is made applicable to disputes involving any future purchaser concerning the validity of those bonds? If not, can it be said that the insertion of that agreement into the document governing a bond issue which is intended for cross-border movement corresponds to a form which accords with usages in international trade or commerce within the terms of Article 23(1)(c) of that regulation?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/39

Appeal brought on 19 July 2013 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 May 2013 in Case T-249/11 Sanco v OHIM — Marsalman (representation of a chicken)

(Case C-411/13 P)

2013/C 260/70

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Sanco, SA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— deliver a fresh judgment on the substance of the case, dismissing the action brought against the contested decision, or refer the case back to the General Court;

— order the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. The General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) CTMR (1) since it took as its basis an incorrect interpretation of the scope of the services covered by the trade mark applied for in Classes 35 and 39 of the Nice Classification. The analysis of the similarity of the goods and services is incorrect because the General Court did not take into account that the activities which an operator offers for its own account in relation to its own goods are not included among the services covered by the trade mark applied for. The question whether such services, within the meaning of the Nice Classification, have to be supplied on behalf of third parties is a question of law which must be clarified by the Court of Justice.

2. The General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) CTMR since it examined the complementarity of goods and services by reference to the importance of a product or a service ‘for the purchase’ of another product or service from the point of view of the relevant public. The General Court failed to consider whether the complementarity of the goods and services is based on an interaction which is such that their use in conjunction with one another is, in strictly objective terms, necessary or desirable.

3. The General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) CTMR in concluding that certain complementary goods and services are automatically similar, despite the low degree of similarity in question, without ascertaining whether the differences arising from other factors were such as to neutralise that complementarity.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 18 July 2013 — Barbara Huber v Manfred Huber

(Case C-408/13)

2013/C 274/26

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Karlsruhe

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Barbara Huber

Defendant: Manfred Huber

Question referred

Whether it is compatible with Article 3(a) and (b) 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)

if it is provided in the first sentence of Paragraph 28(1) of the Gesetzes zur Geltendmachung von Unterhaltsansprüchen im Verkehr mit ausländischen Staaten (Auslandsunterhaltsgesetz — AUG),

that, if a party concerned does not have his or her habitual residence in Germany, the court which is to rule exclusively on applications in maintenance cases falling under Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 is the Local Court which has jurisdiction for the seat of the Higher Regional Court in whose area of jurisdiction the defendant or creditor has his or her habitual residence?

(1) OJ 2009 L 7, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 25 June 2013 — Minister Finansów v Oil Trading Poland sp. z o.o.

(Case C-349/13)

2013/C 274/07

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister Finansów

Defendant: Oil Trading Poland sp. z o.o.

Question referred

Should Article 3(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (1) and correspondingly the current Article 1(3), point (a) of the first subparagraph and the [second] subparagraph, of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (2) be interpreted as not precluding the imposition by a Member State of excise duty on lubricating oils falling within CN codes 2710 19 71 to 2710 19 99 used for purposes other than as motor fuels or heating fuels, in accordance with the rules relating to the harmonised excise duty imposed on the consumption of energy products?

(1) OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 304/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 July 2013 — UAB ‘Vilniaus energija’ v Lietuvos metrologijos inspekcijos Vilniaus apskrities skyrius

(Case C-423/13)

2013/C 304/09

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania)

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: UAB ‘Vilniaus energija’

Defendant: Lietuvos metrologijos inspekcijos Vilniaus apskrities skyrius

Question referred

Must Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and/or Directive 2004/22/EC (1) be interpreted as prohibiting a national regulation and practice under which a hot-water meter which satisfies all of the requirements of Directive 2004/22/EC and is connected to a remote (telemetric) data-transmission device is regarded as being a measuring system and by reason of that fact that hot-water meter cannot be used as intended until a metrological verification has been carried out on that meter and that remote (telemetric) data-transmission device as together constituting a measuring system?

(1) Directive 2004/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on measuring instruments (OJ L 135, p. 1).
A.

Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) (the Brussels I Regulation): 1. Is the wording ‘in matters relating to a contract concluded by a person, the consumer, for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession’ in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 to be interpreted as meaning that: 1.1. an applicant, who has acquired a bearer bond as a consumer on the secondary market and now makes claims against the issuer of the bond based on prospectus liability, for breach of information and control obligations, and based on the bond terms and conditions, can invoke that ground of jurisdiction, if, by purchasing the security from a third party, the applicant has entered derivatively into the contractual relationship between the issuer and the original subscriber of the bond? 1.2. (if question 1.1. is answered in the affirmative) the applicant can invoke the wording of Article 15 of that regulation even if the third party from whom the consumer purchased the bearer bond acquired it for a purpose which can be regarded as being within his trade or profession, and the applicant therefore takes over the bond relationship from a non-consumer? 1.3. (if questions 1.1. and 1.2. are answered in the affirmative) the applicant consumer can invoke jurisdiction as a consumer under Article 15 of that regulation even if he himself is not the holder of the bond, but the third party, whom the applicant contracted to acquire the securities and who himself is not a consumer, holds it in his own name in trust for the applicant in accordance with their agreement, and owes the applicant only a contractual obligation of delivery? 2. (if question 1.1. is answered in the affirmative) Does Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 also provide the basis for accessory jurisdiction of the court seised of contractual claims arising from a bond purchase for claims in tort/delict arising from the same bond purchase?