ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Do the general principle of the effectiveness of Community law and Article 22 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers, interpreted in the light of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, preclude the creditor’s being able to establish proof of fulfilment of its pre-contractual and contractual obligations solely by means of the standard terms in credit agreements whereby the consumer acknowledges that those obligations have been fulfilled, without producing before the court the documents issued by the creditor and supplied to the borrower?
—

declare that, by failing to transpose Article 4(1)(e), the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) and the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, (2) the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 April 2014 — Ralph Prankl

(Case C-175/14)

2014/C 235/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ralph Prankl

Defendant: Bundesfinanzgericht

Question referred

Are Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 9(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (1) (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC (2) of 14 December 1992 (OJ 1992 L 390, p. 1), to be interpreted as precluding national provisions which provide that where excise goods (cigarettes) have been released for consumption in a (first) Member State and, without an accompanying document in accordance with Article 7(4) of that directive, have been transported by land to another Member State (Member State of destination) through one or more other Member States (transit Member States) in order to be sold in the Member State of destination, excise duty (tobacco duty) is charged also in a transit Member State?

(1) OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.

(2) Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992 amending Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products and amending Directive 92/81/EEC; OJ 1992 L 390, p. 124.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/9

Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 12 May 2014 — Portmeirion Group UK Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

(Case C-232/14)

2014/C 235/12

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Portmeirion Group UK Ltd

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Questions referred

Is the contested Regulation (Council Regulation No 412/2013 (1)) incompatible with EU law in so far as it

i. is based on manifest errors of assessment with respect to the definition of the product concerned, thereby invalidating the conclusions of the anti-dumping investigation; and

ii. lacks adequate reasons as required under Article 296 TFEU?

(1) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People's Republic of China

OJ L 131, p. 1
1.

Must Articles 2(1) and 10(2) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the issue of the ticket may be treated as the effective performance of the transport service and that the sums retained by an airline company where the holder of an air ticket has not used his ticket, which is no longer valid, are subject to value added tax?
3.

May Articles 26(2) TFEU, 35 TFEU and 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding rules of a Member State such as those in Paragraphs 24/C and 24/D of the General Tax Law where, under such rules, a Hungarian company which carries on business partly in other Member States of the European Union may not appoint as a senior executive a Hungarian citizen who has previously held a senior executive position in another Hungarian company which carries on business in the internal market, solely on the ground that other Hungarian company has accumulated a tax debt of a certain level, when the accumulation of that debt is not attributable to that Hungarian citizen in his capacity as a former senior executive?
5)

Can Articles 17, 20, 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the principle of legal certainty enshrined in European Union (‘EU’) law and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that set out in Article 21(2) of Law No 554/2004, which provides that, in the event of failure to observe the principle of the primacy of EU law, it is possible to revise decisions of national courts only in the context of administrative law proceedings and which does not allow decisions of national courts made in other areas (civil, criminal, commercial, and so on) to be revised in the event that such decisions are inconsistent with that principle?
1

First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in its identification of the addressee of the contested decision By its first ground, Italmobiliare challenges the argument endorsed by the General Court that Italmobiliare might reasonably be assumed to have access to the information sought. It also argues that the General Court seriously distorted the facts and erred in its application of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations by not considering that the Commission’s earlier conduct and written assurances were likely to give rise to the legitimate expectation that Italmobiliare would not be concerned by the contested decision. Lastly, it is submitted that the judgment of the General Court is vitiated by a complete failure to state reasons with regard to Italmobiliare’s plea alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination because it does not examine the argument put forward by Italmobiliare to demonstrate that it is the only financial holding company to be involved in the procedure as an addressee of the request for information under Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003. (1)
2.

Must Article 1(6) and (11) of Directive 98/34/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations [and of rules on Information Society services], be interpreted as meaning that, if a technical regulation is in force (in this case, a ministerial order adopted on the basis of enabling legislation), the application of a national standard adopted in the same field can only be voluntary, that is to say, the legislation may not prescribe the mandatory application thereof?
—

declare that, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28(1) of Directive 2010/31/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings, because it has failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to transpose Article 2(2) and Article 9(1) into national law or, in any event, to inform the Commission of those measures either as regards mainland Finland and with regard to the Åland Islands it has failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to transpose Article 2(2) and Article 9(1) into national law or, in any event, to inform the Commission of those measures;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/30

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 8 July 2014 — Petar Kezić, s.p., Trgovina Prizma v Republic of Slovenia — Ministry of Finance

(Case C-331/14)

2014/C 303/38

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Petar Kezić, s.p., Trgovina Prizma

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia — Ministry of Finance

Question referred

Are Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be interpreted to the effect that, in circumstances such as those of this case (in which a person buys plots of land acting as a natural person, without being charged any input VAT, then acting as a sole trader builds on those plots a shopping centre, enters as assets of his business on the basis of national accounting rules only some of the plots on which he built the shopping centre and then sells the centre together with all the plots of land to the developer), such a person must, because he has not entered certain plots of land as assets of his business or included those plots in the VAT system, be considered not to be obliged to calculate and pay output VAT?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 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 (77/388/EEC) (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Timiș (Romania) lodged on 12 June 2014 — Silvia Ciup v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice (AJFP) Timiș — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Timișoara

(Case C-288/14)

2014/C 303/25

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Timiș

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Silvia Ciup

Defendant: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice (AJFP) Timiș — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Timișoara

Question referred

Can the principles of equivalence and effectiveness of remedies for infringements of EU law, upheld by the case-law of the Court, and the right to property referred to in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law that defer, on the basis of instalments payable over a period of five years, the reimbursement of taxes levied in breach of Community law and reimbursement of interest thereon, such reimbursements having been directed to be made by judgments that became enforceable by 31 December 2015?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/42

Action brought on 22 July 2014 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-358/14)

2014/C 315/69

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims the Court should:

— declare invalid Article 2.25, Article 6(2)(b), Article 7(1) to (5), (7), first sentence, and (12) to (14), and Article 13(1)(c) of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC; (1)

— order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Poland submits in its action that the contested provisions contain complex and novel rules set out for the first time in Directive 2014/40/EU, the objective of which is, by means of the establishment of a prohibition of the marketing of tobacco products with characterising flavours and through the fixing of measures accompanying that prohibition, to exclude entirely such products, including menthol cigarettes, from the internal market. In view of the share held by menthol cigarettes in the European Union market for tobacco products, that prohibition brings with it very serious repercussions for the manufacture of menthol cigarettes.

The Republic of Poland raises the following objections to the contested provisions:

First: breach of Article 114 TFEU. The prohibition of the marketing of menthol cigarettes was introduced even though there are no discrepancies between national legal provisions which could restrict the movement of goods. This prohibition does not contribute to improving the functioning of the internal market but, on the contrary, results in the creation of obstacles which did not exist before the directive was adopted.

Second: infringement of the principle of proportionality. The prohibition of the marketing of menthol cigarettes is not an appropriate means for attaining the objectives pursued by the directive. Furthermore, this prohibition runs counter to the requirement that measures taken must be necessary for attaining the objectives pursued. The costs involved in introducing the prohibition exceed by far any potential advantages.

Third: infringement of the principle of subsidiarity. The prohibition of the marketing of menthol cigarettes runs counter to the principle of subsidiarity, in that the issue of menthol cigarette consumption, in regard to both the influence on public health and the potential social and economic costs of the prohibition of their sale, has a local character which is confined to a narrow group of Member States. For that reason, this issue has to be resolved at national level, and exclusively in those Member States in which there is a high level of consumption and manufacture of those products.

(1) OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/38

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 17 June 2014 — Vestische Arbeit Jobcenter Kreis Recklinghausen v Jovanna Garcia-Nieto and Others

(Case C-299/14)

2014/C 315/61

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vestische Arbeit Jobcenter Kreis Recklinghausen

Defendants: Jovanna Garcia-Nieto, Joel Pena Cuevas, Jovanlis Pena Garcia, Joel Luis Pena Cruz

Questions referred

1. Does the principle of equal treatment under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) — with the exception of the clause in Article 70(4) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 excluding the provision of benefits outside the Member State of residence — also apply to the special non-contributory cash benefits referred to in Article 70(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004?

2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative: may the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004 be limited by provisions of national legislation implementing Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (2) which do not under any circumstances allow access to those benefits for the first three months of residence where European Union citizens in the Federal Republic of Germany are neither employed or self-employed persons nor entitled to exercise freedom of movement under Paragraph 2(3) of the Freizügigkeitsgesetz/EU (Law on Freedom of Movement for EU Citizens, ‘the FreizügG/EU’) and, if so, to what extent may that principle be limited?

3. If the first question is answered in the negative: do other principles of equal treatment under primary law — in particular Article 45(2) TFEU in conjunction with Article 18 TFEU — preclude a national provision which does not under any circumstances allow the grant of a social benefit which is intended to ensure subsistence and to facilitate access to the labour market in their first three months of residence to European Union citizens who are neither employed or self-employed persons nor entitled to exercise freedom of movement under Paragraph 2(3) of the FreizügG/EU, but who can demonstrate a genuine link to the host State and, in particular, to the labour market of that host State?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

(2) 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 2004 L 158, p. 77).
1.

Is a serviced residence, within the meaning of the Decree of the Council of the Walloon Region of 5 June 1997 relating to retirement homes, serviced residences and day-care centres for persons of 60 or over, [which makes available] for profit individual dwellings designed for one or two persons, comprising a fitted kitchen, a sitting room, a bedroom and a fitted bathroom, thereby enabling residents to lead an independent life, together with a range of optional services supplied against payment, with the aim of making a profit, those services not being available exclusively for the occupants of the serviced residences (… a bar restaurant, … hairdressing and beauty salon, … a physiotherapy room, … occupational therapy activities, … a laundry, … a pharmacy and a blood collection point, a doctor’s surgery), a body that is in essence devoted to social wellbeing which carries out supplies ‘of services and of goods closely linked to welfare and social security work’ for the purposes of Article 13A(1)(g) of 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 (1) (now Article 132(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax) (2)?
2.

Is the term ‘used to produce electricity’ in Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC (3) of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity to be interpreted — in cases involving energy products which have been released for free circulation and are removed from a tax warehouse of an authorised warehouse keeper, sold in a commercial transaction to a purchaser which possesses neither an authorisation for the production of electricity nor a certificate as an end user exempt from excise duty, and which are then resold by that purchaser to a third party which possesses an authorisation for the production of electricity, a permit from the competent authorities of the Member State for receiving duty-free energy products and a certificate as an end user exempt from excise duty, and to which the energy products are delivered directly by the authorised warehouse keeper, without coming under the actual control of the purchaser — as meaning that the energy products are used by the direct purchaser, which does not in fact put them to use in a particular operation for achieving a purpose exempt from excise duty, or as meaning that they are used by the third party, which does in fact put them to use in an operation which it carries out for achieving a purpose exempt from excise duty, namely heating, for example, for the production of electricity?
1.

First ground of appeal The judgment under appeal infringes Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) for three reasons: — When assessing whether a sign is registrable, account should be taken of the wording of the goods and/or services applied for. That did not happen in the proceedings before the General Court. Instead, the General Court took account of websites belonging to the appellant and the list of goods covered by a US trade mark, which were not the subject of the dispute. — Even with the meaning assigned by the General Court to the word HIPERDRIVE, only one characteristic of a drive is described by the sign HIPERDRIVE. However, in the present case, no essential characteristics of the applied-for goods themselves were described by the alleged description of the part of the drive integrated into the goods applied for. The General Court therefore erred in law in the application of the criteria set out in the recent European case-law in that regard (see judgment of 15 January 2013 in Case T-625/11 BSH v OHIM (ecoDoor) (2) and judgment of 10 July 2014 in Case C-126/13 P BSH v OHIM (3), paragraph 27). — The General Court’s allegedly incorrect assumption that ‘HIPER’ must be equated with ‘hyper’, although those terms are never used interchangeably, is based on the inaccurate assertion that both ‘HIPER’ and ‘hyper’ are pronounced identically in English. Despite the appellant’s numerous examples to the contrary, that allegedly incorrect assertion is neither verified nor substantiated by the General Court. According to the case-law, the question whether the grounds of a judgment of the General Court are contradictory or inadequate is a question of law.
5.

Must Council Directive 87/102/EEC (3) of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit, as amended and supplemented by Directive 98/7/EC (4) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998, be interpreted as meaning that the APR includes also a payment for cash acceptance of repayment instalments of the credit, or part of it, if the payment substantially exceeds the unavoidable costs of that ancillary service, and must Article 14 of that directive be interpreted as meaning that it is a circumvention of the concept of APR if the payment for an ancillary service substantially exceeds the costs of the ancillary service and the payment is not included in the APR?
2.

If the answer to question 1 is that the selection of one or more economic operators is a characteristic of a public contract, the following question arises: is the characteristic of the selection of economic operators within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC to be interpreted, in the light of Article 2 of that directive, as meaning that contracting authorities may refrain from selecting one or more economic operators by way of an authorisation procedure only if the following conditions are satisfied: — the carrying out of an authorisation procedure is published at European level, — clear rules concerning the conclusion of the contract and acceding to the contract are set, — the terms of the contract are set in advance in such a way that no economic operator is able to influence the content of the contract, — economic operators are granted the right to accede to the contract at any time; — the contracts concluded are published at European level?