ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-24/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 8 January 2018 — István Bán v KP 2000 Kft., Edit Kovács

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 8 January 2018 — István Bán v KP 2000 Kft., Edit Kovács

(Case C-24/18)

Referring court

Budapesti II. és III. Kerületi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: István Bán

Defendants: KP 2000 Kft., Edit Kovács

Question referred

Must national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which rights of use created over land used for agricultural or forestry activities are extinguished ex lege, without any financial compensation, where a new owner acquires, in the context of enforcement proceedings, the immovable property subject to the right of use and where the land user has not obtained, in relation to that land, aid for agricultural or rural development that is funded by the European Union or the national budget and that is subject to the obligation of using the land for a certain period of time as established by law, be regarded as a restriction contrary to Articles 49 and 63 TFEU?
2.

If those provisions are to be interpreted as requiring a rolling reference period, may the possibility afforded by Article 17 to derogate from Article 16(b) relate not only to the duration of the reference period but also to the requirement for a rolling period?
2.

Can Articles 6 and 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU, read in combination with the provisions of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that a system of provisions of national law as set out in the abovementioned paragraphs, which ultimately provides that publication of decisions approving the environmental conditions of projects and activities with a significant environmental impact, by means of posting them on a special website, creates a presumption of full knowledge on the part of every interested party for the purpose of exercising the legal remedy available under current legislation (application for annulment before the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias [Council of State]) within a period of sixty (60) days, is compatible with those articles, bearing in mind the legislative provisions governing publication of environmental impact studies and public information and participation during the procedure to approve the environmental conditions of those projects and activities, which provisions place the wider administrative unit (region), rather than the municipality concerned, at the centre of those procedures?
2.

In the event of an affirmative answer to the first question, must the term ‘legal person’ as used in Article 1(a) and Article 9(3) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA be interpreted: a. in accordance with the law of the issuing State (Article 1(c)); b. in accordance with the law of the executing State (Article 1(d)); c. as an autonomous concept of EU law, and, as a consequence, does it also cover a branch of a legal person notwithstanding the fact that that branch does not have legal personality in the executing State?
Case C-212/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 26 March 2018 — Prato Nevoso Termo Energy Srl v Province of Cuneo, ARPA Piemonte

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 26 March 2018 — Prato Nevoso Termo Energy Srl v Province of Cuneo, ARPA Piemonte

(Case C-212/18)

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Prato Nevoso Termo Energy Srl

Defendants: Province of Cuneo, ARPA Piemonte

Questions referred

1. Do Article 6 of Directive 2008/98/EC ( 1 ) and, in any case, the principle of proportionality, preclude provisions of national law, such as Article 293 of Legislative Decree No 152/2006 and Article 268 paragraph eee-bis) of Legislative Decree No 152/2006, which provide that, even in the ambit of a procedure for authorisation of a biomass-powered plant, a bioliquid that fulfils the technical requirements in that respect and is requested for production purposes as fuel must be considered waste if and so long as it is not included in Annex X part II, section 4, par.1 in Part V of Legislative Decree of 3 April 2006, No 152, irrespective of any adverse environmental impact assessments, or of any dispute as to the technical characteristics of the product, arising in the context of the authorisation procedure?

2. Do Article 13 of Directive 2009/28/EC ( 2 ) and, in any case, the principles of proportionality, transparency and simplification preclude a provision of national law such as Article 5 of Legislative Decree No 28/2011 insofar as it does not provide, when the applicant requests authorisation to use biomass as fuel in a plant producing emissions into the atmosphere, for any coordination with the procedure for authorisation of that use as fuel under Legislative Decree No 152/2006, Annex X Part V, or provide for the possibility of specifically assessing the solution proposed in the context of the single authorisation procedure and having regard to pre-defined technical specifications?

( 1 ) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3).

( 2 ) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).
Case C-268/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 18 April 2018 — SC Onlineshop SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală a Vămilor

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 18 April 2018 — SC Onlineshop SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală a Vămilor

(Case C-268/18)

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bacău

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SC Onlineshop SRL

Respondents: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală a Vămilor

Questions referred

1. Must the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, ( 1 ) as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/1821 of 6 October 2016, ( 2 ) be interpreted as meaning that apparatus such as the GPS navigation system PNI S 506, at issue in the present dispute, is to be classified under tariff subheading 8526 91, subheading 8526 91 20, or heading 8528, subheading 8528 59 00, thereof?

2. Are the versions of the Combined Nomenclature, as amended, successively, by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 698/2012 ( 3 ) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 459/2014, ( 4 ) relevant for the purposes of determining the correct tariff classification of apparatus such as the navigation system at issue in the present dispute, in the sense that they may be applicable, by analogy, to products which are similar to the navigation system in question, and does the application by analogy of those provisions support the interpretation of the [Combined Nomenclature] provided by the customs authority?

( 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).

( 2 ) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 of 6 October 2016 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2016 L 294, p. 1).

( 3 ) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 698/2012 of 25 July 2012 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2012 L 203, p. 34).

( 4 ) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 459/2014 of 29 April 2014 amending certain regulations on the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2014 L 133, p. 43).
1.

Must a review, by a national court of its own motion, of the provisions of a contract concluded with a consumer determining which court has jurisdiction to hear a dispute, and which is based on Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts ( 1 ) and on the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (judgment in Case C-243/08, Pannon GSM Zrt v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi), also cover those provisions of the contract which, although governing the matter of jurisdiction for settling disputes between the parties, confine themselves to referring to rules of national law?
1.

Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services ( 1 ) and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC ( 2 ) be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour, such as the failure by the hiring-out entity to make documents relating to pay available to the third-party employer, provides for very high fines, in particular high minimum penalties, which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned?
Case C-73/18 P: Appeal brought on 2 February 2018 by Cotécnica, S.C.C.L. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 20 November 2017 in Case T-465/16, Cotécnica v EUIPO — Visán Industrias Zootécnicas (Cotecnica OPTIMA)

Appeal brought on 2 February 2018 by Cotécnica, S.C.C.L. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 20 November 2017 in Case T-465/16, Cotécnica v EUIPO — Visán Industrias Zootécnicas (Cotecnica OPTIMA)

(Case C-73/18 P)

Parties

Appellant: Cotécnica, S.C.C.L. (represented by: J.C. Erdozain López, J. Galán López and L. Montoya Terán, abogados).

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Visán Industrias Zootécnicas.

By order of 7 June 2018, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being manifestly unfounded and ordered Cotécnica, S.C.C.L to bear its own costs.
(b)

a consumer, who would be authorised by law to use the water from his own domestic well for his personal consumption and who does not use this water on account of high nitrate values (and who was unable to use it at the time of the application underlying the proceedings and who could, admittedly, use it at the time of the present application to the Court of Justice of the European Union, even though it is common ground that a further increase of the nitrate value to above 50 mg/l nitrate concentration in the water is to be expected), but who rather receives the water from a public water supplier, is to that extent directly concerned within the meaning of the case-law of the European Union (in this case possibly by failure to implement Council Directive 91/676/EEC 12 December 1991), in so far as he is concerned by what are claimed to be inadequate action plans and the value of 50 mg/l nitrate concentration in the water of his water intake (domestic well) is exceeded, with the result that he is unable to exercise his legal right to make limited use of the groundwaters on his property and is therefore granted subjective rights under the Nitrates Directive (b.1) to amendment of an action programme already adopted nationally to implement the Nitrates Directive (pursuant to Article 5(4) of the Nitrates Directive) in such a way that stricter measures with the aim of attaining the objectives of Article 1 of the Nitrates Directive and specifically attaining a value of up to a maximum 50 mg/l nitrate concentration in the groundwaters at individual intake points are thus adopted? (b.2) to the adoption of addition measures or reinforced actions (pursuant to Article 5(5) of the Nitrates Directive) with the aim of achieving the objectives laid down in Article 1(1) of the Nitrates Directive and specifically attaining a value of up to a maximum 50 mg/l nitrate concentration in the groundwaters at individual intake points?
1.

Do Articles 4 and 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC, ( 1 ) in conjunction with recitals 6, 8, 28 and 31 thereof, preclude national primary legislation and the related secondary implementing legislation — such as Article 35(1) of Decree-Law No 133/2014, as converted into law by Law No 164/2014, and the Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 10 August 2016, published in the Official Journal of the Italian Republic, No 233 of 5 October 2016 — in so far as only incineration facilities covered by that legislation, in accordance with the indications set out in the annexes and tables of that decree, are classified as strategic infrastructure and installations of major national importance which establish an integrated, modern system for the management of municipal and similar waste and which ensure self-sufficiency, in the interests of national safety, given that the national legislature did not classify installations for the treatment of waste for recycling and re-use purposes in the same way, even though they are two of the leading methods in the waste hierarchy set out in the directive? In the alternative, if that is not the case, do Articles 4 and 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC preclude national primary legislation and the related secondary implementing legislation — such as Article 35(1) of Decree-Law No 133/2014, as converted into law by Law No 164/2014, and the Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 10 August 2016, published in the Official Journal of the Italian Republic, No 233 of 5 October 2016 — in so far as municipal waste incineration facilities are classified as strategic infrastructure and installations of major national importance in order to deal effectively with and avert further infringement proceedings for failure to implement the rules of EU law governing the waste sector, as well as for the purpose of limiting the amount of waste being deposited in landfill?
(1)

The General Court misinterpreted Article 263 TFEU by taking the view that the appellant is not directly concerned by the European Commission’s decision. In the context of the present ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court’s assessment, finding that the appellant is not directly concerned by the European Commission’s decision, is incorrect. The approach taken by the General Court is not consistent with the existing case-law indicating that a decision of the European Commission is of direct concern to persons other than the national regulatory authority which is the addressee of that decision. In particular, the appellant indicates that the German regulatory authority clearly intended to give regulatory clearance.
Case C-288/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 25 April 2018 — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 25 April 2018 — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-288/18)

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Must subheadings 8528 51 00 and 8528 59 40 of the Combined Nomenclature (text from 1 January 2007 to 25 October 2013) be interpreted as meaning that flat panel displays, with a screen of the liquid crystal display (LCD) technology, designed and manufactured for displaying data from an automatic data-processing machine and from other composite video signals from other sources, regardless of the other objective characteristics and properties of the specific monitor, must be classified under subheading 8528 59 40 of the CN if, because of their size, weight and functionality, they are not suitable to be viewed close up? Does it matter in that regard whether the user (the reader) of the screen and the person who processes and/or enters data in the automatic data-processing machine are one and the same?
—

Must Article 5(3) of 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, be interpreted as meaning that an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, the spillage of petrol on a runway which caused that runway to be closed, must be found to be an event inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of an air carrier and, accordingly, cannot be classified as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ exonerating the air carrier from its obligation to compensate passengers in the case where a flight operated by that carrier is subjected to a significant delay?
Case C-372/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nancy (France) lodged on 7 June 2018 — Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics v Mr and Mrs Raymond Dreyer

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nancy (France) lodged on 7 June 2018 — Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics v Mr and Mrs Raymond Dreyer

(Case C-372/18)

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Nancy

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

Respondents: Mr and Mrs Raymond Dreyer

Question referred

Do the contributions allocated to the Caisse nationale de solidarité pour l’autonomie (National Solidarity Fund for Independent Living), which contribute to the funding of the benefits in question, have a direct and sufficiently relevant link with certain branches of social security listed in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 ( 1 ) and do they therefore come within the scope of that regulation solely on the ground that those benefits relate to one of the risks set out in that Article 3 and are granted without any discretionary assessment on the basis of a legally defined position?

( 1 ) Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).
Case C-387/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 12 June 2018 — Delfarma Sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 12 June 2018 — Delfarma Sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych

(Case C-387/18)

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Delfarma Sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych

Question referred

Does EU law, including without limitation Article 34 and Article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, preclude national legislation whereby the marketing authorisation in a Member State for a medicinal product imported in parallel cannot be granted quite simply because the medicinal product imported in parallel has been authorised in the Member State of export as a generic medicinal product, namely on the basis of an abridged dossier, whereas in the Member State of import this medicinal product has been authorised as a reference medicinal product, namely on the basis of a full dossier, and the authorisation is refused without examining whether both products are essentially therapeutically identical and without the national authority applying — despite this being possible — for documentation to the appropriate authority in the Member State of export?
Case C-385/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 June 2018 — Arriva Italia Srl and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 June 2018 — Arriva Italia Srl and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

(Case C-385/18)

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Arriva Italia Srl, Ferrotramviairia SpA, Consorzio Trasporti Aziende Pugliesi (CO.TRA.P)

Defendant: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

Questions referred

In the factual and legal circumstances set out above, does a measure involving the statutory allocation of EUR 70 million for the benefit of an operator in the rail transport sector, in accordance with the conditions laid down by Law No 208 of 28 December 2015 (Article 1(867)), as amended by Decree-Law No 50 of 24 April 2017, and the subsequent transfer of that operator to another economic operator, without a competitive tender procedure and for no consideration, constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

If so, is it necessary to establish whether the aid in question is, in any event, compatible with EU law, and what are the consequences of failure to give notification of the aid for the purposes of Article 10[8](3) TFEU?
2.

If question 1 is to be answered in the negative, what are the requirements under Article 6(2) of Directive 2003/86/EC … that apply to the reasons for the withdrawal or the refusal to renew the residence permit of a family member on grounds of public policy? Must Article 6(2) of Directive 2003/86/EC … therefore be interpreted as precluding a national practice according to which the residence permit of a family member can be withdrawn or the renewal thereof can be refused on grounds of public policy if the penalty or measure to which the family member concerned has been sentenced is sufficiently high in relation to the duration of the lawful stay in the Netherlands (the ‘sliding scale’), so that, based on the criteria laid down in the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR) of 2 August 2001, Boultif v Switzerland, CE:ECHR:2001:0802JUD005427300, and 18 October 2006, Üner v The Netherlands, CE:ECHR:2006:1018JUD004641099, a balance is struck between the interest of the family member concerned to exercise the right to family reunification in the Netherlands, on the one hand, and the interests of the Netherlands State to protect public order, on the other hand?
Case C-357/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 31 May 2018 — Bettina Plackner v Nürnberger Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft Österreich

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 31 May 2018 — Bettina Plackner v Nürnberger Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft Österreich

(Case C-357/18)

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bettina Plackner

Defendant: Nürnberger Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft Österreich

Question referred

Must Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619/EEC (Second Life Assurance Directive), ( 1 ) as amended by Directive 92/96/EEC (Third Life Assurance Directive), ( 2 ) in conjunction with Article 31 of Directive 92/96/EEC, be interpreted as meaning that information regarding the right of cancellation must also contain the notice that the cancellation does not have to be communicated in any specific form?

( 1 ) Second Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50).

( 2 ) Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1).