ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Since the list of ‘support systems’ mentioned in the previous question includes fiscal stimulus measures consisting of, ‘but … not restricted to’, tax reductions, exemptions and refunds, are those stimuli to be regarded as specifically including non-taxation, that is to say, the prohibition of any kind of specific and one-off levy, in addition to the general taxes levied on the economic activity and production of electricity, imposed on energy from renewable sources? The following question is also asked in this paragraph: [Similarly], is the general prohibition stated above also considered to include the prohibition of concurrence, double taxation or overlapping of multiple general or one-off taxes charged at different stages of the activity of generating renewable energy, affecting the same chargeable event taxed by the levy on wind power under consideration?
1.

Must Article 146(1)(e) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that the exemption laid down therein is applicable only where there is a direct legal connection or a reciprocal contractual relationship between the services provider and the consignee or the consignor of the goods?
If the first question is answered in the affirmative:

Does it constitute an aspect of competition that is compatible with Article 101(1) TFEU if the members of a selective distribution system operating at the retail level of trade are prohibited generally from engaging third-party undertakings discernible to the public to handle internet sales, irrespective of whether the manufacturer’s legitimate quality standards are contravened in the specific case?
1.

Must Article 49 TFEU and Article 54 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a regional tax stated to be levied on the environmental damage caused by the use of facilities and amenities attached to the business and trade carried on in retail establishments with large sales and parking areas for their customers, provided that the public sales area exceeds 500 m2, but that applies regardless of whether the retail establishments are actually situated outside or inside the consolidated urban area and is borne in most cases by undertakings of other Member States, bearing in mind that the tax (i) is not actually levied on traders who own several retail establishments, irrespective of their total public sales area, if none of them has a public sales area exceeding 500 m2, even if one or more of them exceeds that threshold but the basis of assessment does not exceed 2 000 m2, while it does apply to traders who own a single retail establishment with a public sales area exceeding those thresholds; and (ii) is not levied on retail establishments engaged in the exclusive sale of machinery, vehicles, tools and industrial supplies; construction materials, plumbing materials, doors and windows, for sale only to professionals; fittings for individual, conventional and specialist establishments; motor vehicles, in dealerships and repair workshops; nurseries for gardening and cultivation; and motor fuel, irrespective of their total public sales area?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 20 May 2016 — Vereniging Hoekschewaards Landschap v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

(Case C-281/16)

(2016/C 279/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vereniging Hoekschewaards Landschap

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

Question referred

Is the Commission Implementing Decision of 3 December 2014 adopting an eighth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region, (1) in so far as the ‘Haringvliet’ site (NL 1000015) was thereby placed on that list without the inclusion of the Leenheerenpolder, valid?

(1) OJ 2015 L 18, p. 385.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/23

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici (Croatia) lodged on 15 June 2016 — VG Čistoća d.o.o. v Đuro Vladika, Ljubica Vladika

(Case C-335/16)

(2016/C 296/31)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VG Čistoća d.o.o.

Defendants: Đuro Vladika, Ljubica Vladika

Question referred

How is the fee for the collection and transport of household waste calculated in accordance with EU law? How do Union citizens pay the invoices for the collection and transport of municipal waste, that is, do they pay for the collection and transport of household waste according to the volume of the empty bins or containers, or according to the volume of refuse collected, and is any other item included within the fee?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 6 July 2016 — Port of Assens v Navigators Management (UK) Limited

(Case C-368/16)

(2016/C 314/18)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Port of Assens

Defendant: Navigators Management (UK) Limited

Question referred

Must Article 13.5, read in conjunction with Article 14.2(a), of the Regulation on Jurisdiction (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) be interpreted as meaning that an injured party who is permitted under national law to bring an action directly against the company providing insurance cover for the party which caused the injury is bound by an agreement on jurisdiction validly concluded between the insurer and the policy-holder in accordance with Article 13.5, read in conjunction with Article 14.2(a), of the Regulation on Jurisdiction?

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

As there is divergence between the different language versions of Article 3(2) of Commission Directive 2008/69/EC (1) of 1 July 2008 and a possible discrepancy with Recital 7 of the preamble to the Directive, the following question is referred to the Court of Justice: Is the date 31 December 2008 in Article 3(2) of Commission Directive 2008/69/EC of 1 July 2008, in its Spanish version, to be understood as the expiry of the deadline for the Member States to carry out a re-evaluation, or as the final date for inclusion in the list in Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC (2) of the active substances which must be re-evaluated, or as the final day for submitting the corresponding application for inclusion?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 326/11

Appeal brought on 16 June 2016 by the Portuguese Republic against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-550/15 Portugal v Commission

(Case C-337/16 P)

(2016/C 326/21)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Other party: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as, in that judgment, the General Court accepted the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission in the present proceedings;

— Declare that the appeal of the contested decision has been validly brought within the period laid down in Article 263 TFEU.

— Order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Portuguese Republic considers that the decision is invalid on the following grounds:

A — First ground — Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings against the decision of 20 July 2015

First argument

Infringement of Article 263 TFEU.

Second argument

Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings from the date of notification of the final decision on 20 July 2015.

B — Second Ground — Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings from the date of publication of the contested decision in the Official Journal

First argument

The wording of Article 263(6) TFEU.

Second argument

The consistent practice of publishing such decisions and identical prior legal proceedings.

C — Third Ground — The General Court erred in law in so far as it did not favour an interpretation that did not result in lapse of the right to bring proceedings
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 326/8

Appeal brought on 16 February 2016 by LTJ Diffusion against the judgment delivered on 15 December 2015 in Case T-83/14 LTJ Diffusion v EUIPO — Arthur et Aston (ARTHUR & ASTON)

(Case C-94/16 P)

(2016/C 326/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: LTJ Diffusion (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Arthur et Aston SAS

By order of 15 June 2016 the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/35

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 24 June 2016 — T.KUP SAS v Belgische Staat

(Case C-349/16)

(2016/C 335/47)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: T.KUP SAS

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Questions referred

1. Is Regulation No 1294/2009 (1) invalid in respect of an importer such as that in the present case, on the ground of infringement of Article 17(1) of the basic regulation, (2) given that the Commission, in its review, used a sample of only eight importers, notwithstanding the fact that a manageable number of 21 importers ought to have been examined?

2. Is Regulation No 1294/2009 invalid in respect of an importer such as that in the present dispute, on the ground of infringement of the third subparagraph of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation, given that the Commission, in its review, did not take sufficient account of the evidence supplied in that it included five large importers in the sample as against only three small importers, and in that it primarily took into account the information provided by the five large importers?

3. Is Regulation No 1294/2009 invalid in respect of an importer such as that in the present dispute, on the ground of infringement of Articles 2 and 3 of the basic regulation and/or of Article 11(2), (5) and (9) of the basic regulation, given that the Commission, in its review, had before it inadequate information to enable it to determine that there were continued imports resulting in dumping and injury?

4. Is Regulation No 1294/2009 invalid in respect of an importer such as that in the present dispute, on the ground of infringement of Article 21 of the basic regulation, given that the Commission, in its review, requires that there be specific indications that an importer is being disproportionately burdened by an extension?

(1) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2009 L 352, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/32

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 30 May 2016 — Stanisław Pieńkowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie

(Case C-307/16)

(2016/C 335/42)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stanisław Pieńkowski

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie

Question referred

Must Articles 146(1)(b), 147, 131 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes application of the exemption to a taxable person who does not satisfy the condition relating to attainment of the relevant turnover ceiling for the previous tax year and who also has not concluded an agreement with a person authorised to refund tax to travellers?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Federal Express Europe Inc.

(Case C-273/16)

(2016/C 343/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law and cross-respondent on a point of law: Agenzia delle Entrate

Respondent on a point of law and cross-appellant on a point of law: Federal Express Europe Inc.

Question referred

Can Articles 144 and 86(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (1) (corresponding to Article 14(1) and (2) and Article 11.B(3) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (2)), taken together, be interpreted to mean that the only condition in order for connected services consisting of the ‘inbound’ transport service — from airports to the place of destination within the territory of the Member State, with the ‘free-at-destination’ clause — not to be liable to VAT is that their value is included in the taxable amount, regardless of whether or not the goods in question were in fact subject to customs duties, at the time of their importation; and is it therefore incompatible with those EU-law provisions if the domestic rules laid down in Articles 9(1).2 and 69(1) of Presidential Decree No 33 of 26 October 1972, read together in the versions in force at the time of the material facts, provide that in every case, and therefore also in the case of imports that are not liable to VAT — as is the case here, since it concerns documents and goods of negligible value — there has to be compliance with the additional requirement that those imports must in fact be liable to VAT (and customs duty must in fact be paid) at the time of the importation of such goods, even, if need be, when account is taken of the ancillary nature of the transport services in relation to the main services (namely the importation) and of the rationale of simplification underlying both the main and the ancillary operations?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

(2) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
2.

If the answer to Question 1 is that all or some of such information may be personal data within the meaning of the Directive, what factors are relevant in determining whether in any given case such script is personal data, and what weight should be given to such factors?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 350/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 13 July 2016 — Marcu Dumitru v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

(Case C-392/16)

(2016/C 350/21)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Marcu Dumitru

Respondent: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

Question referred

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, do Directive 77/388/EEC (1) and Directive 2006/112/EC (2) preclude national legislation or a tax practice according to which the reverse charge mechanism (simplification measures) — which was at the time mandatory for transactions, relating to land, between taxable persons for VAT purposes — is not applicable to a person who has been subject to an investigation and registered, automatically, for VAT purposes following that investigation, on the grounds that that person had not applied for or been granted registration before the transactions were carried out or the ceiling [for exemption] was exceeded?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

(2) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
1.

Does an invoice required by Article 168(a) in conjunction with Article 178(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) in order to exercise a right of deduction contain a ‘full address’ within the meaning of Article 226(5) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax if, in the invoice he issues in relation to the supply, the taxable person making the supply gives an address by which he may be reached by post but where he does not carry out any economic activity?
1.

Is the expression ‘judicial decision’, within the meaning of Article 8(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) a term of EU law which must be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation?
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Are Article 118m(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 to be interpreted as meaning that the use of a protected designation of origin as part of the designation of a foodstuff which does not correspond to the product specifications but to which an ingredient has been added which does correspond to the product specifications constitutes exploitation of the reputation of the designation of origin in the case where the designation of the foodstuff corresponds to the customary designations on the market in question and the ingredient is added in a quantity which is sufficient to give the product one of its essential characteristics?
The General Court erred in law in assessing the evidence, and in any event, failed to fulfil its duty to exercise its powers of unlimited jurisdiction, by considering that the appellant had not provided the Commission with the information necessary to evaluate the assets of its shareholders. In addition, the General Court failed to state reasons since it did not explain why the Deloitte reports relied on by Tycsa PSC lacked evidential value.
3.

Is Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions (3) (as amended by Article 117 of Directive 2014/59/EU) to be interpreted as meaning that a reduction in the liabilities of a divestment unit which is carried out by an administrative authority of the divestment unit’s home Member State, those liabilities being governed by a different national law, and the reduction of the interest rate and the postponement of liabilities in the Member State whose law governs the obligations and in which the creditor in question has its seat, are fully effective without any further formalities, or is this subject to the conditions that the divestment unit (divestment company) comes within the scope ratione personæ of Directive 2014/59/EU (see Question 1) and the measure which is taken is within the scope ratione materiæ of application of Directive 2014/59/EU? Does the term ‘fully effective … without any further formalities’ mean that the court of a Member State which is required to decide whether to recognise the measures taken pursuant to the law of the home Member State within the framework of the law governing the liabilities has no power to examine whether those measures are compatible with Directive 2014/59/EU?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/7

Appeal brought on 9 August 2016 by Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) made on 8 June 2016 in Case T–178/15, Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission

(Case C-446/16 P)

(2016/C 410/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH (represented by: A. Wagner, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the order of the General Court of 8 June 2016 and find against the respondent;

— declare admissible the appellants’ notice of opposition of 23 December 2014 in procedure AT-TSG-0007-01035.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In the order under appeal, the General Court took the view that the appellants’ arguments related only to the late transmission of the notice of opposition by the national authority. The appellants, however, state that they also claimed that they were placed at a disadvantage by the stipulation in the second subparagraph of Article 51(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 (1) and that that provision is unlawful because it does not contain any rule on the period within which the national authority had to transmit the appellants’ notice of opposition to the respondent. In that regard, the appellants referred to a flaw in that provision resulting in a situation in which, in the worst-case scenario, they would be unable to lodge a notice of opposition at all. The General Court did not rule on that issue.

In the order presently under appeal, the General Court held only that the appellants had not adequately invoked the unlawfulness of that provision. However, the appellants had already referred in their application to the issue of the incorrect determination of the period in the second subparagraph of Article 51(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012. This means that the appellants did object to the rule laid down by the aforementioned provision and proceeded on the basis that their rights as opposing parties had not been adequately respected.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).