ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
II.

(a) If Question I. is answered in the negative, is Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that an airline does not provide the services provided for under Article 8(1) and (2), that provision gives rise to a separate claim for compensation on the part of the passenger by reason of the non-performance of the aforementioned services and, if so, does that claim also cover the reimbursement of the costs of alternative transportation organised by the passenger himself to his final destination? (aa) If the answer to Question (a) is affirmative, is the claim for compensation relating to the replacement transportation organised by the passenger himself subject to the deduction under the second sentence of Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (b) If Question I. is answered in the affirmative and national law contains a rule under which a passenger has a claim against an airline, on the ground of breach of the obligation under Article 8 of the regulation, for reimbursement of the costs incurred by him by reason of the fact that he organised replacement transportation himself, is that claim for compensation under national law subject to the deduction under the second sentence of Article 12(1) of the regulation? (c) If a deduction under the second sentence of Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 is affirmed, either in the context of Question II (a) or Question II (b), is Article 12 to be interpreted as meaning that the deduction automatically applies without it being necessary for the party obliged to pay the compensation to invoke that deduction?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 168/29

Appeal brought on 11 April 2017 by International Management Group (IMG) against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 2 February 2017 in Case T-381/15, IMG v Commission

(Case C-184/17 P)

(2017/C 168/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: International Management Group (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

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 2 February 2017 in Case T-381/15;

— Consequently, grant the appellant the benefit of its forms of order sought at first instance as reviewed, and therefore: — annul the Commission’s decision of 8 May 2015 denying IMG the status of an international organisation under the Financial Regulation, — order the defendant to pay compensation for the material and non-material harm estimated at EUR 28 million and EUR 1 respectively, — order the defendant to pay all the costs.

— Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the two proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on five pleas in law, alleging:

— the first plea in law: infringement of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, practical provisions for the implementation of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and the rights of the defence; infringement of the defendant’s duty to state reasons; infringement of the first court’s obligation to state reasons and the distortion of the case;

— the second plea in law: infringement of the 2012 Financial Regulation and the Delegated Financial Regulation, a manifest error of assessment, infringement of the first court’s obligation to state reasons, and distortion of the case;

— the third plea in law, infringement of the rights of the defence; infringement of the first court’s obligation to state reasons, and distortion of the case;

— the fourth plea in law, infringement of the principle of proportionality; infringement of the first court’s obligation to state reasons, and distortion of the case;

— the fifth plea in law, infringement of the principle of legal certainty; infringement by the first court of its obligation to state reasons, and infringement of Article 61 of the 2012 Financial Regulation.

Furthermore, the appellant disputes the decision of the General Court to reject its claim for damages as there were no errors.

Finally, the appellant criticises the decision of the General Court to declare an opinion from the Commission’s Legal Service to be inadmissible and not to include it in the file.
(2)

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, that is, if the provisions of Regulation No 1257/1999 prohibit the inheritance of early retirement support, is it possible, in a situation in which a legal provision of a Member State has been held by the European Commission, under the appropriate procedure, to be compatible with the provisions of Regulation No 1257/1999 and farmers have participated in the early retirement measure in accordance with national practice, for an individual right to inherit the support granted under that measure to have been acquired?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/10

Appeal brought on 23 February 2017 by Verus Eood against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 in Case T-82/14, Copernicus-Trademarks v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-101/17 P)

(2017/C 195/15)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Verus Eood (represented by: C. Pfitzer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Maquet

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment in Case T-82/14 in its entirety; in the alternative: set aside the judgment in Case T-82/14 and, on the basis of a distortion of the facts in that judgment, refer the case back to the General Court;

— order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings in all instances.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant puts forward the following grounds in support of its appeal:

(1) infringement of Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009, (1) in particular Article 52 thereof

(2) infringement of Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009, in particular Article 75 thereof

(3) infringement of Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009, in particular Article 76 thereof

(4) infringement of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on ‘trade mark applications made in bad faith’

(5) infringement of the ‘fundamental rights catalogue’ of the Court of Justice of the European Union

(6) infringement of international law, namely the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property

(7) infringement of international law, namely the TRIPS Agreement (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual-Property Rights)

(8) infringement of Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

(9) infringement of Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

(10) infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

(11) infringement of Article 17 of the ‘1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights’

(12) infringement of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and its additional protocols, in particular Article 1 of Protocol No 1

(13) infringement of Article 6 ECHR — Right to a fair trial, in particular relating to distorted or false findings of fact, imputations, false accusations, denigrations, libel, slander

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
some of the site will, for the lifetime of the development project, be excluded from having the potential to provide appropriate habitat,

can such measures as are described in (c) properly be regarded as mitigatory?
—

set aside the judgment of General Court of the European Union of 17 February 2017 in Case T-40/15 and order the European Union to pay the appellants EUR 3 495 038,66, together with the corresponding compensatory and late-payment interest, by way of compensation due as a result of the General Court’s infringement of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 14 March 2017 — Costel Nicușor Mucea v SC Industria Sârmei SA Câmpia Turzii, acting through the receiver SMDA Mureș Insolvency SRL

(Case C-134/17)

(2017/C 202/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Costel Nicușor Mucea

Respondant: SC Industria Sârmei SA Câmpia Turzii, acting through the receiver SMDA Mureș Insolvency SRL

Question referred

Are Articles 114(3) TFEU, 151 TFEU and 153 TFEU and the provisions of Framework Directive 89/391/EEC (1) and the subsequent specific directives to be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from laying down time-limits and procedures which restrict access to judicial remedies for the purpose of the classification of work places as places characterised by particular or special conditions, with the result that workers’ rights to safety and health at work deriving from the assessment of those conditions, in accordance with the national provisions described in the request for a preliminary ruling, are not recognised?

(1) Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).
2.

If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, may it be considered that the commercial company acts as a public authority when performing tasks that are the responsibility of the municipality but that the latter delegates to that company?
3.

With regard to the content of contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, is it consistent with the powers conferred on the European Union in order to ensure a high level of consumer protection and with the fundamental EU principles of the right to an effective judicial remedy and the right to fair legal process in respect of any civil law matter for the standardisation panel of the highest court of a Member State to direct the rulings of courts hearing such proceedings by means of ‘decisions adopted with a view to ensuring uniform interpretation of the law’? 3/a. If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is it consistent with the powers conferred on the European Union in order to ensure a high level of consumer protection and with the fundamental EU principles of the right to an effective judicial remedy and the right to fair legal process in respect of any civil law matter for the standardisation panel of the highest court of a Member State to direct the rulings of courts hearing such proceedings by means of ‘decisions adopted with a view to ensuring uniform interpretation of the law’ where the appointment of judges as members of the standardisation panel is not carried out transparently, in accordance with predetermined rules, where the procedure before that panel is not public, and where it is not possible to know a posteriori the procedure followed, namely the expert evidence and academic works relied on and the way in which the various members have voted (for or against)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 22 May 2017 — EUflight.de GmbH v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-292/17)

(2017/C 249/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EUflight.de GmbH

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Question referred

Is a flight cancellation still caused by an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/04 (1) when the circumstances (here, ‘wildcat strike’ or ‘wave of illness’) only indirectly affect the flight in question in that they prompted the air carrier to reschedule its entire flight plan and the new schedule includes the scheduled cancellation of that specific flight? Can an air carrier avoid liability under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/04 where the flight in question, had it not been rescheduled, could have been operated because the crew planned for that flight would have been available if it had not been assigned to other flights through rescheduling?

(1) 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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/31

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 12 May 2017 — Virgílio Tarragó da Silveira v Massa Insolvente da Espírito Santo Financial Group, SA

(Case C-250/17)

(2017/C 239/38)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Virgílio Tarragó da Silveira

Defendant: Massa Insolvente da Espírito Santo Financial Group, SA

Question referred

Must the rule in Article 15 of Regulation No 1346/2000 (1) of 29 May 2000 be interpreted to the effect that its scope includes a lawsuit pending before a Member State seeking an order that a debtor pay a monetary sum due under a service contract and pay monetary damages for failure to comply with that obligation, bearing in mind that: (i) the debtor was declared bankrupt in proceedings commenced in a court in another Member State; and (ii) the declaration of insolvency applies to all of the debtor’s assets?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga (Portugal) lodged on 1 June 2017 — Caixa Económica Montepio Geral v Carlos Samuel Pimenta Marinho and Others

(Case C-333/17)

(2017/C 256/16)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caixa Económica Montepio Geral

Defendants: Carlos Samuel Pimenta Marinho, Maria de Lurdes Coelho Pimenta Marinho, Daniel Pimenta Marinho, Vera da Conceição Pimenta Marinho

Question referred

Does EU Law — in so far as it recognises the fundamental right of Union citizens to consumer protection and the fundamental right to equal treatment of citizens and undertakings, enshrined in Article 38 and Article 21, respectively, of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] — preclude national legislation (sole article of Decree-Law No 32765 of 29 April 1943, which establishes an exception to the general scheme provided for in Article 1143 of the Civil Code), in that that legislation accords the banking sector treatment different from that received by the remaining citizens and undertakings, as regards the form that loan contracts must take, envisaging a less formal form for loan contracts concluded by banks?
1)

Must Article 14(2) of Directive 97/67/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services (the Postal Directive) be interpreted as meaning that it follows that national legislation must provide that universal service providers must, in their internal accounting, keep separate accounts for each of the services and products which are part of the universal service in order to be able to make a clear distinction between each of the services and products which are part of the universal service and services and products which are not part of such a service, or does it only follow from that provision that an accounting distinction must be made between, on the one hand, the services and products which are part of the universal service and, on the other hand, services and products which are not part of such a service?
2.

If the first question is answered affirmatively, is the procedural autonomy of the Member States, in light of the principles of equivalence, effectiveness and proportionality in the context of the social objective underpinning Articles 151 und 153 TFEU and Directive 2008/94, to be construed as permitting a national measure, such as Article 25 of the Zakon za Garantiranite vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite pri nesastoyatelnost na rabotodatelia, which provides that, on expiry of a period of two months from the date of registration of the decision initiating insolvency proceedings, the rights to assert and obtain satisfaction of guaranteed claims are extinguished if the domestic law of the Member State contains a provision, such as Article 358 (1)(3) of the Kodeks na truda (Employment Code), under which the period for asserting unmet employment-related claims is three years from the date on which the claim ought to have been met and payments made after expiry of this period are not deemed to have been made without a legal basis?
1.

Are Articles 90(1) and 185(1) of Directive 2006/112 (1) to be interpreted as requiring the deduction claimed for input tax on a supply also to be adjusted in a case, such as that in the dispute in the main proceedings, where the legal transaction in respect of which the right to deduct input tax was exercised has been declared null and void by a judgment having legal force or should one, in light of the definition in Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/112, proceed on the basis that there is no supply and the tax claim did not arise in the first place?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/22

Appeal brought on 6 June 2017 by HB and Others against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 April 2017 in Case T-361/14, HB and Others v European Commission

(Case C-336/17 P)

(2017/C 283/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: HB and Others (represented by: P. Brockmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

1. set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 April 2017 in Case T-361/14, HB and Others v Commission, by which their action was dismissed as unfounded and they were ordered to pay the costs, and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union so that a new hearing can be held; in the alternative,

2. should the Court take the view that it has sufficient information before it for that purpose, itself give a ruling on the merits and confirm that the psychological interaction between humans and animals is a matter that comes within the competence of the European Union;

3. in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

First ground of appeal: Procedural defects consisting in an infringement of the right to be heard, in that:

— the acknowledgment by counsel and the judges of the timely appearance of the first appellant at the hearing on 27 September 2016 was prevented because a court official prohibited the admission of the first appellant’s young daughter, her child carer having been delayed. The first appellant was consequently refused entry and, contrary to the statement of that official, no information was passed on to the judges or to her counsel with regard to her presence; and

— the information that they must actively signify their presence in the court room in order to be noted as being present was also not passed on to the other appellants, since, although they arrived before the start of the proceedings, they did so after the time indicated on the formal document requesting their appearance in court.

In this respect, the hearing of the parties, which had been applied for in writing, was precluded and this, in the appellants’ view, led to an erroneous legal assessment, namely that their action was unfounded.

Second ground of appeal: Procedural defects resulting from an assessment of the probative nature of evidence before its production was ordered, in that:

— all offers to adduce evidence were improperly rejected and without any reason being given;

— in particular, with regard to issues of an interdisciplinary nature, no discussion by experts was permitted; and

— no written or oral questions were submitted to the parties.

This, in the appellants’ view, led to an erroneous legal assessment, namely that their action was unfounded.

Third ground of appeal: In the event that the Court of Justice should take the view that ethics are a matter involving human rights and an important requirement for integration, it would be possible for it to give a decision on the merits in the light of the case file.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/27

Action brought on 26 June 2017 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-382/17)

(2017/C 277/40)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and L. Nicolae, Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by failing to develop, implement and maintain a quality management system for the operational parts of the flag-State-related activities of its administration, certified in accordance with the applicable international quality standards, by 17 June 2012, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1) of Directive 2009/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on compliance with flag State requirements;

— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 8(1) of the Directive clearly lays down that by 17 June 2012 the Member States must develop, implement and maintain the quality management system referred to.

It is now June 2017 and the Portuguese Republic has still not complied with Article 8(1).

By acting in that manner, the Portuguese administration is undermining the objectives pursued by the Directive, jeopardising maritime safety and the protection of the environment. In addition, the conduct of the Portuguese administration carries the risk of creating an unfair competitive advantage for the Portuguese fleet in relation to other Member States’ fleets.

(1) OJ 2009 L 131, p. 132.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 293/20

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 29 June 2017 — Sindicatul Energia Oradea v SC Termoelectrica SA

(Case C-392/17)

(2017/C 293/24)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sindicatul Energia Oradea

Defendant: SC Termoelectrica SA

Question referred

Are the provisions of Order No 50/1990, as interpreted by judgment No 9/2016 given by the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania) on a matter of public policy — a judgment binding on courts of law, according to which occupations classified in groups I and II are strictly and rigorously limited to those set out in Annex 1 and 2 of that order, and the courts may not extend the provisions of that order to include other similar cases, with the consequence that those former workers cannot receive the pension benefits owed as a result of the hard working conditions in which they have carried out their work — compatible with Articles 114(3), 151 and 153 TFEU, and with the provisions of framework Directive 89/391/EEC (1) and successive specific directives?

(1) Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).