ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/7

Action brought on 22 December 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-601/14)

(2015/C 089/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Traversa and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the necessary measures to guarantee the existence of a scheme on compensation to victims of all violent intentional crimes committed in its territory, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(2) of Directive 2004/80/EC (1);

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive 2004/80/EC institutes a system of cooperation between the authorities of the Member States to facilitate the access of victims of crime throughout the European Union to appropriate compensation in cross-border situations. The system operates on the basis of Member States’ schemes on compensation to victims of violent intentional crimes committed in their respective territories. To ensure that system of cooperation is fully operational, Article 12(2) of that directive requires the Member States to have or to introduce a scheme on compensation to victims of violent intentional crimes committed in their respective territories which guarantees fair and appropriate compensation to victims. That obligation must be understood as referring to all violent intentional crimes and not as referring to only some of them.

Italian law makes provision for a national scheme on compensation to crime victims which consists of a series of special laws on compensation for certain violent intentional crimes, but does not make provision for a general compensation scheme which covers victims of all crimes identified and categorised by the Italian Penal Code as violent intentional crimes. In particular, Italian law does not provide a scheme on compensation for violent intentional crimes which are forms of ‘common crime’ not covered by those special laws.

Consequently, it must be stated that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(2) of Directive 2004/80/EC.

(1) Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/14

Appeal brought on 23 December 2014 by Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 21 October 2014 in Case T-374/14: Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-602/14 P)

(2015/C 311/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (represented by: A. Mc Donagh, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 4 June 2015 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) has dismissed the appeal and ordered Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd to bear its own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 127/7

Appeal brought on 30 July 2014 by Argo Group International Holdings Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 May 2014 in Case T-247/12: Argo Group International Holdings Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-370/14 P)

(2015/C 127/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Argo Group International Holdings Ltd (represented by: F. Petillion, avocat, J. Janssen, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Arisa Assurances SA

By order of 12 February 2015 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) has dismissed the appeal and ordered Argo Group International Holdings Ltd to bear its own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 127/15

Appeal brought on 26 February 2015 by Netherlands Maritime Technology Association, formerly Scheepsbouw Nederland against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-140/13: Netherlands Maritime Technology Association v European Commission

(Case C-100/15 P)

(2015/C 127/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Netherlands Maritime Technology Association, formerly Scheepsbouw Nederland (represented by: K. Struckmann, Rechtsanwalt, G. Forwood, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it rejected the Appellant’s application for annulment of the Decision;

— Annul the contested Decision, or alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice as to points of law; and

— In any event, award the Appellant its costs, including its costs in the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant argues that the General Court erred in law when considering the sufficiency and completeness of the Commission’s preliminary examination, specifically:

— In failing to properly consider all the arguments relied upon by the Appellant at first instance;

— In committing a manifest error of appreciation; and

— In giving insufficient and contradictory reasoning.

The main arguments can be summarized as follows:

— Regarding the first ground, the General Court misread the Appellant’s arguments with respect to the complex structure of the New STL Scheme, its self-implementation and selectivity and thus did not consider whether the Decision properly analysed the functioning of the scheme as a whole, and in conjunction with other provisions of tax and corporate law.

— Regarding the second ground, the General Court committed a manifest error in its reading of the Decision, leading it to conclude, wrongly, that the Decision sufficiently assessed the scope of beneficiaries of the New STL Scheme.
3.

Depending on the answer given to Question 2, is Directive 2008/115 to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a third-country national who entered the territory of a Member State illegally is liable to a term of imprisonment under the same conditions as those laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment in Achughbabian (C-329/11) (2) in so far as concerns illegal stay, which are contingent on the person concerned not having been previously subject to the coercive measures referred to in Article 8 of the directive and the duration of that person’s detention?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/26

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 13 January 2015 — Odvolací finanční ředitelství v Český Rozhlas

(Case C-11/15)

(2015/C 138/37)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Respondent: Český Rozhlas

Question referred

Can public sector broadcasting, financed by compulsory statutory charges of the amount set by the law, on the basis of ownership of a radio receiver, possession thereof or entitlement to use it on other legal grounds, be regarded as the ‘provision of a service against payment’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, which must be exempted from VAT in accordance with Article 13A(1)(q) of that directive, or is it a non-economic activity which is not subject to VAT at all under Article 2 of the Sixth Directive, and to which exemption from VAT in accordance with Article 13A(1)(q) of that directive does not therefore apply?

(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 146/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 20 January 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Sébastien Andre

(Case C-23/15)

(2015/C 146/19)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Namur

Party to the main proceedings

Sébastien Andre

By Order of 19 March 2015, the Court (Fourth Chamber) has declared that the request for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible.
1.

Articles 7 and 9 of Directive 2008/118 and the principle of proportionality — It is apparent from Article 7 of Directive 2008/118/EC (‘the Directive’) that excise duty on tobacco products becomes chargeable at the time of release for consumption and at the rate then in force. Article 9 of the Directive provides that the chargeability conditions and rate of excise duty to be applied are to be those in force on the date on which duty becomes chargeable. Once the products in question have been released for consumption, there is no provision in EU tax legislation which gives Member States the option of imposing on such products, having regard to the date on which they are released for consumption, excise duty in addition to the duty payable or of restricting the distribution of the products for fiscal reasons. — In Portugal, under Decree No 1295/2007 of the Ministry of Finance and Public Administration (‘the Decree’), cigarette packets bearing a stamp for a given financial year may be sold and marketed only until the end of the third month of the year following that corresponding to the year shown on the stamp, namely the year in which they were released for consumption. As a transitional measure, the Decree provided that the time-limit for sale was fixed at the end of May 2008 for cigarette packets bearing the 2007 stamp and at the end of April 2009 for products bearing the 2008 stamp. — The Commission therefore took the view that the Portuguese legislation in question infringes Article 7 and the first paragraph of Article 9 of the Directive, while not ruling out the possibility that that legislation may be justified on grounds relating to the public interest. — However, the Commission submits that the reasons put forward by Portugal during the administrative phase of the procedure to justify that legislation (the prevention of tax evasion and avoidance, the protection of public health, the fight against illicit trade in tobacco and ensuring the receipt of tax revenue) are not acceptable as the principle of proportionality is infringed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Minister Finansów v BRE Ubezpieczenia Sp. z o.o., established in Warsaw

(Case C-40/15)

(2015/C 155/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Minister Finansów

Respondent: BRE Ubezpieczenia Sp. z o.o., established in Warsaw

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that services such as those in the present case, which are supplied on behalf of an insurance undertaking by a third party — in the name and on behalf of the insurer — which has no legal relationship with the insured person, are covered by the exemption referred to in that provision?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
1.

May Article 13(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights be interpreted as meaning that the party injured by an intellectual property infringement who claims damages for pecuniary loss based on the amount of royalties or fees that would be due if the infringer had requested authorisation to use the intellectual property right in question cannot also claim damages for the moral prejudice suffered?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/22

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 26 March 2015 — K. Ruijssenaars, A. Jansen, other parties: Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu, Royal Air Maroc

(Case C-145/15)

(2015/C 198/29)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: K. Ruijssenaars, A. Jansen

Other parties: Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu, Royal Air Maroc

Question referred

Given that Netherlands law provides access to the civil courts to protect the rights which passengers may derive under EU law from Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7 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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1), does Article 16 of that Regulation oblige the national authorities to take implementing measures which form the basis for administrative enforcement action through the bodies designated under Article 16 separately in each individual case in which Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7 of the Regulation are infringed, in order to be able to guarantee a passenger’s right to compensation separately in each individual case?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/6

Appeal brought on 30 March 2015 by Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2015 in Case T-6/13: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl v Council of the European Union

(Case C-153/15 P)

(2015/C 190/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, advokat, G. Pandey, Advocaat, D. Rovetta, avocat, M. Gambardella, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the order of the General Court of 20 January 2015 in Case T-6/13, Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl v Council of the European Union, and declare the action for annulment to be admissible;

— Refer the case back to the General Court;

— Order the Council to bear the costs of the present appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits two grounds of challenge, whereby the General Court has based the contested order on manifest errors of assessment and errors in law.

The Appellant finds that the General Court has committed manifest errors of assessment by holding first that a complete individual notification took place on 19 October 2012, and second that this notification occurred prior to the publication of a general notice of notification in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 October 2012.

Further, the Appellant finds that the General Court committed errors in law firstly by failing to take into account the requirement that a notification must include a statement of reasons, secondly by holding that an individual notification could have the effect of shortening the time limit for a judicial challenge to a legal act of the Europrean Union, thirdly by disregarding the legal consequences of the choices made by the Council in relation to the notification procedure, and fourthly by failing to take into account the legitimate understanding of the law at the time of the Application.
1(c)

Is it important whether the ‘hyperlinker’ is or ought to be aware of the lack of consent by the rightholder for the placement of the work on the third party’s website mentioned in 1(a) above and, as the case may be, of the fact that the work has also not previously been communicated, with the rightholder’s consent, to the public in some other way?
1.

Under Articles 5(1) and 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council, may a person who has acquired a computer program with a ‘used’ licence on a non-original disk, which works and is not used by any other user, rely upon the exhaustion of the right to distribute a copy of that computer program, the first purchaser of which acquired it from the rightholder with the original disk, which however has been damaged, when the first purchaser has erased his copy and no longer uses it?
—

declare that the Commission incurred tortious liability as regards Rose Vision by including it in alert level W2 of the Early Warning System (EWS) established by Decision 2008/969/EC (1), Euratom, on the Early Warning System for the use of authorising officers of the Commission and the executive agencies, and suspending the payments, and must therefore compensate it for the property or pecuniary damage and the non-pecuniary damage indicated in paragraph 122 of the appeal.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Sabrina Wathelet v Garage Bietheres & Fils SPRL

(Case C-149/15)

(2015/C 213/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sabrina Wathelet

Defendant: Garage Bietheres & Fils SPRL

Question referred

Must the term ‘seller’ of consumer goods referred to in Article 1649bis of the Belgian Civil Code, as inserted by the Law of 1 September 1994 entitled ‘Law concerning consumer protection in matters involving the sale of consumer goods’, which transposes into Belgian law Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999‘on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees’ (1), be interpreted as covering not only a trader who, as seller, transfers ownership of consumer goods to a consumer, but also a trader who acts as intermediary for a non-trade seller, whether or not he is remunerated for his intervention and whether or not he has informed the prospective buyer that the seller is a private individual?

(1) Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12).
2)

Is it compatible with EU law, including Article 56 TFEU, that a national measure serving as a prerequisite for the registration/proportionate adjustment of tax on a vehicle for only temporary, not permanent, use requires prior approval or means that: (i) the authorities require full payment of Danish registration tax as a prerequisite for immediate use, and that the difference between the full amount of tax and the proportionate amount of tax that has been calculated is to be repaid with interest if permission is subsequently given; and/or that (ii) the authorities require full payment of the registration tax as a prerequisite for immediate use, and this is not adjusted, and the surplus is not repaid when temporary use ceases, in the event that permission is not given?
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 temporary civil servants 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 administrative, or the power of the public authorities to organise the way they function, which justify treating the two situations differently?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 254/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 22 May 2015 — Maria do Céu Brangança Linares Verruga, Jacinto Manuel Sousa Verruga, André Angelo Linares Verruga v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche

(Case C-238/15)

(2015/C 254/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Maria do Céu Brangança Linares Verruga, Jacinto Manuel Sousa Verruga, André Angelo Linares Verruga

Defendant: Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche

Question referred

Is the condition imposed on students not residing in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by Article 2 bis of the Law of 22 June 2000 on State financial aid for higher education — which was added by the Law of 19 July 2013 and which does not take into account any other connecting factor —, namely that they must be the children of workers who have been employed or have carried out their activity in Luxembourg for a continuous period of at least five years at the time the application for financial aid is made, justified by the considerations relating to education policy and budgetary policy put forward by the Luxembourg State, and appropriate and proportionate in each case in relation to the objective pursued, namely of bringing about an increase in the proportion of persons with a higher education degree while seeking to ensure that those persons, having benefited from the possibility offered by the system of aid concerned in order to finance their studies — undertaken as the case may be abroad — will return to Luxembourg in order to apply their knowledge for the benefit of the economic development of that Member State?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 30 April 2015 — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Brașov v Vasile Toma, Biroul Executorului Judecătoresc Horaţiu-Vasile Cruduleci

(Case C-205/15)

(2015/C 245/08)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Brașov

Defendants: Vasile Toma, Biroul Executorului Judecătoresc Horaţiu-Vasile Cruduleci

Question referred

On a proper construction of Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 20, 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, do those provisions preclude legislation such as Article 16 of the [Romanian] Constitution and Article 30 of Government Emergency Order No 80/2103, which enshrines the principle of equality before the law only as between citizens as natural persons and not between citizens as natural persons and legal persons governed by public law, and which, a priori, exempts legal persons governed by public law from the requirement to pay stamping fees and to lodge a security in order to gain access to justice, whilst making access to justice by natural persons conditional upon payment of stamping fees/the lodging of a security?