ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-591/14)

(2015/C 073/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and B. Stromsky, Acting as agents, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by failing, within the period prescribed, to take all the necessary measures to recover from the beneficiaries the aid declared to be illegal and incompatible with the internal market by Article 1(3) and (4) of Commission Decision 2011/678/EU of 27 July 2011, concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by Belgium (1), and by failing to inform the Commission, within the prescribed period, of the measures taken to comply with that decision, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to comply with its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2011/678/EU.

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By Commission Decision 2011/678/EU concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Commission declared aid granted by Belgium to be illegal and incompatible with the internal market.

The period prescribed by the decision for the recovery of the aid declared to be illegal expired on 28 November 2011, without the complete recovery of those aids having taken place.

At the date on which the present action was lodged, the defendant had still not adopted the necessary measures to recover the aid granted to the beneficiary companies, nor communicated to the Commission all the information requested.

(1) OJ L 2011 274, p. 36.
3

Is a national court hearing a claim for breach of a private contract alleged to arise from a breach of a term as to merchantability or fitness for use (implied by statute in a contract between the parties and not modified or disapplied by them) in respect of a product produced in accordance with EN13242:2002, obliged to presume that the product is of merchantable quality and fit for its purpose, and if so, may such a presumption only be rebutted by proof of non-compliance with EN13242:2002 by tests carried out in accordance with the tests and protocols referred to in EN13242:2002 and carried out at the time of supply of the product?
1.

May social protection, the rights of the child and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination as guaranteed in EU law by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 20, 21(1), 24(1) and (2), 34 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 3(1)(b) and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1) be interpreted as precluding certain provisions of national law which limit, with no objective and reasonable justification, the amount of the child maintenance allowance on the basis of the date of birth of the child rather than the date of conception, even though that child, if born alive and viable, can be considered to have existed from that date?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/7

Request for a preliminary ruling made by the Sąd Rejonowy w Rzeszowie (Poland), lodged on 10 June 2014 — Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowe ‘Stylinart’ sp. z o.o. v Skarb Państwa — Wojewoda Podkarpacki, Skarb Państwa — Prezydent Miasta Przemyśla

(Case C-282/14)

(2015/C 171/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Rzeszowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowe ‘Stylinart’ sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Skarb Państwa — Wojewoda Podkarpacki, Skarb Państwa — Prezydent Miasta Przemyśla

By order of 11 December 2014, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled that it manifestly lacked jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by the Sąd Rejonowy w Rzeszowie.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/11

Appeal brought on 29 August 2014 by Romano Pisciotti against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2014 in Case T-403/14 Pisciotti v Commission

(Case C-411/14 P)

(2015/C 118/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Romano Pisciotti (represented by: M. Maresca, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 28 January 2015, the Court (Second Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Romano Pisciotti to bear his own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/13

Appeal brought on 22 January 2015 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2014 in Case T-481/11 Spain v Commission

(Case C-26/15 P)

(2015/C 089/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the present appeal is well founded and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2014 in Case T-481/11 Spain v Commission;

— annul the fifth indent of point D of section VI of Part 2 of Annex I to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 (1) of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors;

— order the respondent to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Error of law as regards the scope of the obligation to state reasons. The reasoning on which the General Court relies does not correspond with the necessary clarity and lack of ambiguity that the statement of reasons for a regulation must satisfy in order to meet the requirements of Article 296 TFEU. In fact, the General Court filled the gaps in the statement of reasons for the contested regulation and substituted its own reasoning for the statement of reasons of the contested measure.

Error of law as regards the principle of equal treatment. The General Court’s reasoning on this issue is not based on appropriate criteria for making the comparison. The General Court based its reasoning on an allegedly well-known fact, which is not supported by fact or science, namely the distinction between fruits with thick rind and those with thin rind and the inclusion of citrus fruit in the first category.

Error of law as regards judicial review of the principle of proportionality. The review by the General Court as to the proportionality of a restriction on the trade in goods imposed by an institution must be carried out having regard to the Commission’s broad margin of discretion. However, the General Court did not carry out its judicial review in accordance with the Tetra Laval (2) case-law. First, it did not review properly the relevance and appropriateness of the elements on which the adopted decision is based as regards the grounds justifying the restriction. Second, it did not examine correctly the conclusions drawn from the data, so that the restriction goes beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objective pursued.

(1) OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1.

(2) Judgment of 15 February 2005 in Commission v Tetra Laval (C-12/03 P, EU:C:2005:87), paragraph 39.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 16 January 2015 — New Valmar BVBA v Global Pharmacies Partner Health srl

(Case C-15/15)

(2015/C 118/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: New Valmar BVBA

Defendant: Global Pharmacies Partner Health srl

Question referred

Must Article 45 TFEU be interpreted as precluding legislation of a federal unit of a Member State, such as, in the present case, the Flemish Community in the Federal State of Belgium, which requires every undertaking which has its place of establishment within the territory of that unit to draw up, pursuant to Article 52 of the Laws of 18 July 1966 on the use of languages in administrative matters (Belgisch Staatsblad of 2 August 1966) in conjunction with Article 10 of the Decree of the Flemish Community of 19 July 1973 (Belgisch Staatsblad of 6 September 1973), invoices which are of a cross-border character exclusively in the official language of that federal unit, on pain of nullity of those invoices, which nullity is to be determined by the courts of their own motion?
1.

Does the Second Company Law Directive (1) preclude in all circumstances, including the circumstances of this case, the making of a Direction Order pursuant to section 9 of the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act, 2010, on foot of the opinion of the Minister that it is necessary, where such an order has the effect of increasing a company's capital without the consent of the general meeting; allotting new shares without offering them on a pre-emptive basis to existing shareholders, without the consent of the general meeting; lowering the nominal value of the company's shares without the consent of the general meeting and, to that end, altering the company's memorandum and articles of association without the consent of the general meeting?
1.

Do the terms ‘reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses’ in Article 14 of the Enforcement Directive (1) preclude the Belgian legislation which offers courts the possibility of taking into account certain well-defined features specific to the case and which provides for a system of varying flat rates in respect of costs for the assistance of a lawyer?
II —

Infringement of Article 27 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) owing to a failure to communicate a new ‘Statement of Objections’ beforehand — Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations — Manifest distortion, as can be seen from the acts in question, of the facts and the evidence — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Failure to state reasons — Infringement of the right to a hearing before the Hearing Officer.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/35

Appeal brought on 11 February 2015 by Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 December 2014 in Case T-476/12 Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-60/15 P)

(2015/C 138/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and P.-A. Schütter, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 in Case T-476/12;

— uphold the action it brought at first instance seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 17 January 2013 (GestDem No 3273/2012).

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court failed to observe the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (1) concerning the grounds for refusing to grant free access to environmental information. Contrary to Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 the General Court did not interpret the grounds for refusal laid down in Article 4(3) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 strictly (2). In addition, the General Court did not appropriately take into account the public interest put forth in gaining access to environmental information. Nor is the judgment under appeal in conformity with the Aarhus Convention on access to environmental information, which has been ratified by the European Union.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 18 February 2014 — SC Vicdantrans SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-73/15)

(2015/C 155/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SC Vicdantrans SRL

Respondent: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Question referred

Must Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a Member State from establishing a tax, called an ‘environmental stamp duty’, such as that provided for in Emergency Government Order No 9/2013, payable upon the registration of second-hand motor vehicles coming from another Member State or upon the transfer of ownership of second-hand motor vehicles purchased on the domestic market, but not payable in respect of second-hand motor vehicles purchased on the domestic market for which a similar tax — levied contrary to EU law — had been previously paid which has not been repaid?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wuppertal (Germany) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Hartmut Frenzel v Resort Marina Oolderhuuske BV

(Case C-39/15)

(2015/C 155/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Wuppertal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hartmut Frenzel

Defendant: Resort Marina Oolderhuuske BV

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 26 February 2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/20

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 6 March 2015 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v NA

(Case C-115/15)

(2015/C 171/24)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant: NA

Questions referred

1. Must a third country national ex-spouse of a Union citizen be able to show that their former spouse was exercising Treaty rights in the host Member state at the time of their divorce in order to retain a right of residence under Article 13(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1)?

2. Does an EU citizen have an EU law right to reside in a host member state under Articles 20 and 21 of the TFEU in circumstances where the only state within the EU in which the citizen is entitled to reside is his state of nationality, but there is a finding of fact by a competent tribunal that the removal of the citizen from the host member state to his state of nationality would breach his rights under Article 8 of the ECHR or Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU?

3. If the EU citizen in (2) (above) is a child, does the parent having sole care of that child have a derived right of residence in the host member state if the child would have to accompany the parent on removal of the parent from the host member state?

4. Does a child have a right to reside in the host Member State pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68/EEC (2) (now Article 10 of Regulation 492/2011/EU (3)) if the child’s Union citizen parent, who has been employed in the host Member State, has ceased to reside in the host Member State before the child enters education in that state?

(1) Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC OJ L 158, p. 77.

(2) Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community OJ L 257, p. 2.

(3) Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union OJ L 141, p. 1.
3)

Is Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18 to be interpreted as precluding Paragraph 1, point 21 of the Additional Provisions (Dopalnitelni razporedbi) of the Law on public procurement (Zakon za obshtestvenite porachki), according to which it is sufficient, for the purposes of determining that a body is a body governed by public law, if just one of the criteria corresponding to the cumulative criteria laid down by that directive is met?
2.

Does Article 9(3) of the Rome I Regulation exclude solely the direct application of overriding mandatory provisions of another country in which the obligations arising out of that contract are not to be performed, or have not been performed, or does that provision also exclude indirect regard for those mandatory provisions in the law of the Member State the law of which governs the contract?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 12 March 2015 — Salutas Pharma GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover

(Case C-124/15)

(2015/C 178/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Salutas Pharma GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

Question referred

Is the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and the statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1777/2001 of 7 September 2001 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that effervescent tablets with a calcium content of 500 mg per tablet that are used for the prevention and treatment of a calcium deficiency and to support a special therapy for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and for which the maximum recommended daily dose for adults indicated on the label is 3 tablets (= 1 500 mg) are to be classified under subheading 3004 9000?

(1) OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2001 L 240, p. 4.
2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is an instalment agreement entered into between a debtor and his creditor through the intermediation of a debt collection agency a ‘deferred payment, free of charge’ within the meaning of Article 2(2)(j) of Directive 2008/48 if the debtor only undertakes therein to pay the outstanding debt and such interest and costs as he would have incurred by law in any case as a result of his default — in other words, even in the absence of such an agreement?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 26 March 2015 — Provincia di Bari v Edilizia Mastrodonato S.r.l.

(Case C-147/15)

(2015/C 205/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Provincia di Bari

Respondent: Edilizia Mastrodonato S.r.l.

Question referred

Must Article 10(2) of Directive 2006/21/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that backfilling with waste — if carried out using waste other than extractive waste — must be subject to the legislation regarding waste set out in Directive 1999/31/EC (2) even when the operation does not consist of the disposal of waste but of recovery?

(1) Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC — Statement by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 15).

(2) Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1).
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

Must the Term of Protection Directive be construed as precluding a rule of national legislation under which the copyright in a work of applied art that lapsed before 1 July 1995 on the ground that a formal condition had not been satisfied is deemed to have lapsed permanently?
1.

Are liquids with an alcohol content of 27 % by volume, which are described as spirit drinks and are sold through pharmacies in 10 ml or 20 ml dropper bottles or as sprays, beverages containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol within the meaning of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1), where, according to the dosage instructions given on the packaging, (a) four drops of the liquid are to be added to a glass of water and drunk at intervals over the course of the day or four drops are to be taken undiluted, as required, (b) two sprays of the liquid sold in spray form are to be applied to the tongue?
1.

Does an instruction to employ equipment for the processing of personal data within the territory of a Member State, issued outside the EU by a controller, within the meaning of Article 2(d) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31), to a detective agency established within the EU, come within the notion of ‘making use of equipment’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(c) of that directive?
2.

If the previous question is answered in the negative, must the principle of equivalence be interpreted as meaning that the national court may regard the situation of staff who are employed by a public authority under a fixed-term contract and that of occasional regulated staff as similar in cases where there has been misuse of fixed-term employment contracts, or, when assessing similarity, must the national court consider factors other than the fact that the employer is the same, the services provided are the same or similar and the contract of employment has a fixed term, such as the precise nature of the employee’s relationship, whether contractual or regulated, or the power of the public authorities to organise the way they function, which justify treating the two situations differently?
(a)

must the term ‘matters relating to a contract’ in Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as extending to an action whereby the appellant pursues a claim alleging unjust enrichment, but that is submitted as a counter-claim under national law, linked to the respondent’s main claim, which relates to the contractual relationship between the parties, when the purpose of the claim alleging unjust enrichment is to obtain refund of the amount the appellant was obliged to pay by a judgment (subsequently) set aside, delivered in proceedings on the main claim brought by the respondent, and therefore refund of the amount deriving from a contractual case? If the foregoing question can be answered in the affirmative: