ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
9.

Is the presumption that this type of parking gives rise to a contract and entails consent to pay for a daily ticket if one does not pay the hourly parking charges or if the ticket expires, contrary to the basic stipulations on the provision of services in Article 56 TFEU and to the other provisions of the acquis, irrespective of whether the owner of the vehicle is a natural or a legal person? In other words, for the purposes of determining the material law, can the provisions of Article 4 of Regulation No 593/2008 apply in this case (given that there is no evidence in the proceedings to show that the parties came to an agreement on the applicable law)? — If a contract is held to exist, would it be a contract for the provision of services in the present case, that is to say, can the parking contract be considered a service within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 593/2008? — In the alternative, could the parking be considered to constitute a tenancy agreement in accordance with Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation No 593/2008? — In the alternative, if the parking comes under the provisions of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 593/2008, the question arises as to what constitutes the characteristic performance in the present case, bearing in mind that, in essence, the appellant merely marks the parking area on the roadway and collects parking charges, while the respondent parks and pays for the parking. In practice, if the characteristic performance is considered to be that of the appellant, Croatian law would apply, whereas if the characteristic performance is that of the respondent, Slovenian law would apply. However, given that in this case the right to collect parking charges is regulated by Croatian law, with which, therefore, the contract is more closely connected, can the provisions of Article 4([3]) of Regulation No 593/2008 nevertheless also apply? — If the case is considered to involve a non-contractual obligation within the terms of Regulation No 864/2007, could this non-contractual obligation be considered to constitute damage, meaning that the applicable law would be determined in accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation No 864/2007? — In the alternative, could this type of parking be considered to constitute unjust enrichment, meaning that the applicable law would be determined in accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation No 864/2007? — In the alternative, could this type of parking be considered to constitute negotiorum gestio, in which case the applicable law would be determined in accordance with Article 11(1) of Regulation No 864/2007? — In the alternative, could this type of parking be considered to constitute liability on the part of the respondent for culpa in contrahendo, in which case the applicable law would be determined in accordance with Article 12(1) of Regulation No 864/2007?
2.

If Question 1(b) is answered in the affirmative: (a) Is entry B 3020 or the fourth indent thereof to be interpreted as meaning that it requires absolute freedom from foreign material, in the sense that the classification of waste under that entry is precluded if the waste — regardless of its volume and potential danger — contains materials other than waste and scrap of paper or paperboard (foreign materials)? (b) If Question 2(a) is answered in the negative: Can a proportion of foreign material in waste, in particular on account of its volume, also preclude classification under entry B 3020 or the fourth indent thereof, if the conditions of the so-called chapeau of Annex III to Regulation 1013/2006 have not been met, that is to say, the waste is contaminated by other materials to an extent which does not increase the risks associated with the waste sufficiently to render it appropriate for submission to the procedure of prior written notification and consent, when taking into account the hazardous characteristics listed in Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC, (3) and does not prevent the recovery of the waste in an environmentally sound manner?
1.

Should the provisions of Article 57(4)(c) and (g), in conjunction with paragraphs 6 and 7 of that article, of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC be interpreted as precluding an application whereby the economic operator is required to provide evidence on its own initiative of the measures that the economic operator has taken to demonstrate its reliability?
3.

Should consideration be given, when answering Question 2, to the fact that the taxable person not established in the Member State of refund was, from the point of view of a reasonable applicant, and given the design of the electronic portal in the State of establishment and the form provided by the Member State of refund, entitled to assume that, for the application to have been properly made, or in any event to be formally complete and timely, entering an indicator other than the invoice number is sufficient for the purpose of identifying the invoice to which the refund application relates?
2.

For the purpose of answering that question, does it matter whether the compensation that can be claimed by the application of the statutory compensation scheme is equal to or lower or higher than the compensation under the term which has been declared void?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de prud’hommes de Metz (France) lodged on 18 June 2019 — Syndicat CFTC du personnel de la Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de la Moselle v Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de Moselle

(Case C-463/19)

(2019/C 280/39)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil de prud’hommes de Metz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Syndicat CFTC du personnel de la Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de la Moselle

Defendant: Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de Moselle

Other party: Mission nationale de contrôle et d’audit des organismes de sécurité sociale

Question referred

Should Directive 2006/54/EC (1) read in conjunction with Articles 8 and 157 TFEU, the general EU law principles of equal treatment and of the prohibition of discrimination, and Articles 20, 21(1) and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of Article 46 of the French national collective agreement for social security bodies, which grant female employees of social security organisations raising children on their own three months leave with half pay, one and a half months leave with full pay and unpaid leave of up to a year after maternity leave, are excluded from the scope of application of that directive?

(1) Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 10 April 2019 — Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Tulcea v SC Piscicola Tulcea SA

(Case C-294/19)

(2019/C 288/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanța

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant/defendant at first instance: Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Tulcea

Respondent/applicant at first instance: SC Piscicola Tulcea SA

Question referred

Must Articles 2 and 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, (1) and Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, (2) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in the conditions obtaining in the main proceedings, excludes a farmer from payment of the entitlements on the ground that the aquaculture facilities used as arable land do not constitute an ‘agricultural area’ for the purposes of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 since they are not regarded as eligible land under Article 34(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009?

(1) OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16.

(2) OJ 2009 L 316, p. 1.
1.

Can the system of competition established by Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) be interpreted to mean that, in a situation in which a cartel participant has entered into a construction contract as agreed in the cartel with a player outside the cartel, the competition infringement continues, due to the economic effects caused thereby, throughout the whole period in which contractual obligations arising from the contract are discharged or payments for the works are made to the contracting parties, that is to say up until the point at which the last instalment is paid for the works, or at least up until the point at which the works in question are completed;
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Göteborg (Sweden) lodged on 19 June 2019 — Allmänna ombudet hos Tullverket v Combinova AB

(Case C-476/19)

(2019/C 288/42)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Göteborg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Allmänna ombudet hos Tullverket

Defendant: Combinova AB

Question referred

A customs debt on importation or exportation incurred under Article 79 is to be extinguished in accordance with Article 124(1)(k) (1) if there is sufficient evidence to the satisfaction of the customs authorities that the goods have not been used or consumed and have been removed from the customs territory of the Union. Does the term ‘used’ mean that goods have been processed or refined for the purpose for which authorisation was granted to a company for those goods, or does the term concern a use which goes beyond that processing or refining? Is it relevant whether the use takes place before or after the customs debt arose?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).
Action brought on 26 July 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-573/19)

(2019/C 305/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. order that, because of the systematic and continuous failure to observe the annual limit values for NO2 concentration — since 2010, and continuously, in zones IT0118 (agglomeration of Turin), IT0306 (agglomeration of Milan), IT0307 (agglomeration of Bergamo), IT0308 (agglomeration of Brescia), IT0309 (zone A — plain with a high level of urbanisation), IT0906 (agglomeration of Florence), IT0711 (Municipality of Genoa), IT1215 (agglomeration of Rome), — from 2010 to 2012 and then again since 2014, continuously, in zones IT1912 (agglomeration of Catania) and IT1914 (industrial land), a failure which persists, the Italian Republic has failed to meet its obligation under Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, (1) in conjunction with Annex XI thereto;

2. order that, by failing to adopt, as from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the limit values for NO2 concentration in the zones referred to in paragraph 1, the Italian Republic has systematically and continuously failed also to meet its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, both on its own and in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV thereto, a failure which persists;

3. as a result, order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first plea in law , the Commission claims that the data collected regarding NO2 concentration in the air demonstrate a systematic and continuous infringement of Article 13 of Directive 2008/50, in conjunction with Annex XI thereto. In accordance with those provisions, considered jointly, the level of concentration of those substances cannot exceed fixed annual limits. In certain zones, those limits have been exceeded continuously for more than ten years.

By its second plea in law , the Commission claims that the Italian Republic has failed to meet its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, on its own and in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV thereto. In the first place, it submits, the air quality plans, adopted following the exceedance of the limit values for NO2 concentration, do not make it possible to comply with those limit values or to limit the exceedance to the shortest period possible. In the second place, many of those plans do not contain the information required under Section A of Annex XV to the directive, the provision of that information being mandatory under the third subparagraph of Article 23(1) thereof.

(1) Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1).
2.

Second question: May Article 1(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of Council Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies be interpreted as meaning that the reference period of 30 or 90 days laid down as a condition for the existence of collective redundancies may be calculated prospectively from the date of the individual dismissal at issue without the need for subsequent terminations to be regarded as abusive?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 May 2019 — Roberto Abate SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-416/19)

(2019/C 328/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Roberto Abate SpA

Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate

Question referred

Are Article 1(1223) of Law No 296 of 27 December 2006 (now Article 16a(11) of Law No 11 of 4 February 2005) and the Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 23 May 2007 compatible with EU law, with reference to Article 108(3) TFEU as interpreted in Deggendorf, Commission Decision C(2008) 380, and the Community-law principle of proportionality?
1.

1. Does the term ‘judicial authority’ as referred to in Article 6(2) (1) of the Framework Decision constitute an autonomous concept of EU law? 2. If the answer to Question 1.1 is in the affirmative: which criteria are to be applied for the purpose of determining whether an authority of the executing Member State is such a judicial authority and whether a European arrest warrant executed by that authority therefore constitutes such a judicial decision? 3. If the answer to Question 1.1 is in the affirmative: is the Netherlands Openbaar Ministerie (Public Prosecution Service), more specifically the Officier van Justitie (Public Prosecutor), covered by the concept of judicial authority, as referred to in Article 6(2) of the Framework Decision, and does the European arrest warrant executed by that authority thus constitute a judicial decision? 4. If the answer to Question 1.3 is in the affirmative: is it permissible for the initial surrender to be assessed by a judicial authority, more specifically, the Overleveringskamer (the court responsible for the surrender decision) in Amsterdam, in accordance with Article 15 of the Framework Decision, whereby, inter alia, the defendant’s right to be heard and right of access to the courts are respected, whereas the supplementary surrender in accordance with Article 27 of the Framework Decision is assigned to a different authority, namely the Officier van Justitie, whereby the defendant is not guaranteed the right to be heard or to have access to the courts, with the result that there is a manifest lack of coherence within the Framework Decision without any reasonable justification? 5. If the answer to Questions 1.3 and 1.4 is in the affirmative: should Articles 14, 19 and 27 of the Framework Decision be interpreted as meaning that a public prosecution service acting as the executing judicial authority should first of all respect the defendant’s right to be heard and right of access to the courts, before consent can be given for the prosecution, conviction or detention of a person with a view to the execution of a custodial sentence or measure for a criminal offence committed before his surrender under a European arrest warrant, that latter offence not being the criminal offence for which his surrender was requested?
3.

If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative: In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, in which a taxable person carries out construction works on a municipal road on behalf of a city, is the free-of-charge transfer of the public road to the municipality treated, in accordance with Article 5(6) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as a supply of goods free of charge even though the transfer serves commercial purposes, in order to prevent an untaxed final consumption by the municipality?
5.

Should the second subparagraph of Article 19(1), Articles 2 and 4(3) TEU and Article 47 of the CFR, in conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, be interpreted as meaning that the existence of a service relationship and the status of judge of a person who received a document appointing him to the position of judge of the court of final instance in a Member State cannot be determined by the organisational unit of that court which is competent in that matter under national law, to which unit that person has been appointed, and which unit is composed exclusively of persons whose appointment documents suffer from the defects referred to in Questions 2 to 4 and which unit for those reasons is not a court or tribunal within the meaning of EU law, but must rather be determined by another organisational unit of that court which satisfies the requirements of EU law for a court or tribunal?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 24 February 2019 by FV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 December 2018 in Case T-750/16, FV v Council

(Case C-188/19 P)

(2019/C 357/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: FV (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Parliament, European Commission

By order of 3 September 2019, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, are Article 14(3) of Directive 2003/6/EC, in so far as it continues to apply ratione temporis, and Article 30(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 compatible with Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — including in the light of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 6 ECHR and the constitutional traditions common to the Member States — in so far as they require sanctions to be applied even to individuals who refuse to answer questions put to them by the competent authorities and which might establish their liability for an offence that is punishable by administrative sanctions of a ‘punitive’ nature?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 19 June 2019 — UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-478/19)

(2019/C 357/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH

Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate

Question referred

Does EU law — in particular the provisions of the Treaty concerning freedom of establishment and free movement of capital, as interpreted by the Court — preclude the application of a provision of national law, such as Article 35(10-ter) of Decree Law No 223/2006 (in so far as it grants relief on mortgage registration tax and the Land Registry fee only in respect of closed-end real estate investment funds)?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n.o 05 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 2 August 2019 — SI v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona

(Case C-592/19)

(2019/C 363/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n.o 05 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SI

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona

Question referred

Must Article 4 and Article 6(1) of Directive 2003/109/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a criminal record, of any nature, is sufficient grounds for refusing access to long-term resident status, without any requirement to assess the duration of residence and the existence of links with the country of residence?

(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).
Appeal brought on 6 May 2019 by PITEE Fogyasztóvédelmi Egyesület against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2019 in Case T-566/18, PITEE Fogyasztóvédelmi Egyesület v European Commission

(Case C-358/19 P)

(2019/C 372/06)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: PITEE Fogyasztóvédelmi Egyesület (represented by: D. Lázár, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party: European Commission

By order of 26 September 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to pay its own costs.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 17 April 2019 by Renew Consorzio Energie Rinnovabili against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 February 2019 in Case T-39/19 Renew Consorzio Energie Rinnovabili v Commission and Italy

(Case C-325/19 P)

(2019/C 372/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Renew Consorzio Energie Rinnovabili (represented by: G. Passalacqua, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Italian Republic

By order of 19 September 2019, the Court (Sixth Session) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered Renew Consorzio Energie Rinnovabili to bear its costs.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Openbaar Ministerie v ZB

(Case C-627/19)

(2019/C 383/54)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: ZB

Question referred

In the case where an EAW seeks the enforcement of a custodial sentence imposed by an enforceable decision of a judge or court, whereas the EAW has been issued by a Public Prosecutor who participates in the administration of justice in the issuing Member State, and there is a guarantee that he acts independently in the execution of those of his responsibilities which are inherent in the issuing of a European arrest warrant, does the condition also apply that there must be a possibility of instituting court proceedings against the decision to issue an EAW — in particular its proportionality — which meet in full the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection?