ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/21

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2010 — ROJ TV A/S v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-245/10)

()

2010/C 234/33

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ROJ TV A/S

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Question referred

A ruling is sought from the Court of Justice of the European Union on whether and, if so, the circumstances under which the application of national legislation concerning the prohibition of an association for infringement of the principles of international understanding falls within the field coordinated by Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1) of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC (2) of 30 June 1997 and, thus, is precluded by Article 2a of the directive?

(1) Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23).

(2) Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60).
—

Declare that, in the context of the award procedure by the Department of Agriculture and Food for a public supply contract for animal identification tags, concerning the application of criteria relating to tenderers’ ability to perform the contract in question as award criteria, instead of selection criteria, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53 of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/27

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem (Netherlands), lodged on 2 July 2010 — X v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst P

(Case C-320/10)

()

2010/C 246/46

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X BV

Defendant: Inspecteur der Belastingdienst P

Questions referred

1. In the assessment of the validity and/or the interpretation of Regulations No 535/94, (1) No 1832/2002, (2) No 1871/2003 (3) and No 2344/2003, (4) by which additional note 7 (CN) to Chapter 2 was introduced (numbered as note 8 at the time) and amended, is it possible to rely on the decision of 27 September 2005 of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) [of the World Trade Organisation] concerning the interpretation of the term ‘salted’ in heading 0210, even in cases in which the declaration for the customs procedure for ‘release for free circulation’ was made before that date?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: How is it to be determined whether the character of chicken meat has been altered?

3. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: (a) Having regard to the DSB’s decision of 27 September 2005, are the aforementioned regulations valid in so far as they lay down that, for the purposes of heading 0210, meat is deemed to be ‘salted’ if it has a total salt content by weight of 1,2 % or more? (b) In the light of the DSB’s decision of 27 September 2005, must the aforementioned regulations be interpreted as meaning that additional note 7 (CN) to Chapter 2 lays down that the character of meat with a salt content by weight of 1,2 % or more is deemed to have been altered, that that meat qualifies as ‘salted’ for the purposes of heading 0210, and that meat with a salt content by weight of less than 1,2 %, the character of which has been demonstrably altered through the addition of salt, is not excluded from classification under heading 0210?

4. If Question 3(a) is answered in the affirmative: How is it to be determined whether the long-term preservation of chicken meat is guaranteed through the addition of salt?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 535/94 of 9 March 1994 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1994 L 68, p. 15).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2002 L 290, p. 1).

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1871/2003 of 23 October 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 5).

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2344/2003 of 30 December 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 346, p. 38).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), lodged on 7 July 2010 — Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

(Case C-338/10)

()

2010/C 260/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS)

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

Question referred

Is an anti-dumping regulation adopted by the European Commission in proceedings under Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) invalid because the Commission adopted that anti-dumping regulation by reference to a normal value determined on ‘[an]other reasonable basis’ (in this case, on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for like products in the Community) without conducting further investigations to ascertain a normal value after two companies in a country which the Commission had initially considered to be an analogue country had been contacted in writing but to no effect (one of them not replying at all and the other indicating its willingness to cooperate but failing to respond to the questionnaire which was then sent to it), and parties to the proceedings had drawn the Commission’s attention to another possible analogue country?

(1) OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1.
—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) or, in any event, by not communicating such measures to the Commission, France has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can the person liable for the duty in a case such as the action in the main proceedings — in which the exporting country has declared proofs of preferential origin issued during a particular period to be invalid because the origin of the goods could not be confirmed by subsequent verification even though it could not be ruled out that some export goods satisfied the origin requirements — rely on the protection of legitimate expectations on the basis of the second and third subparagraphs of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2) and claim that the preference certificates presented in his case may have been correct and were therefore based on a correct account of the facts provided by the exporter?
—

declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies, or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
—

declare that the Republic of Estonia has failed to notify the measures necessary to transpose Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 90/385/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices, Council Directive 93/42/EEC concerning medical devices and Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market; (1)
—

exercise its unlimited jurisdiction and award him the sum of EUR 5 500 by way of compensation for the financial loss resulting from the unlawful conduct in adopting the contested measure and from the lack of appropriate instructions to the team leader (expert 1);
1.

Does the abuse of rights principle in taxation matters, as defined in Cases C-255/02 Halifax and Others [2006] ECR I-1609 and C-425/06 Part Service [2008] ECR I-897, constitute a fundamental principle of Community law only in the field of harmonised taxes and in matters governed by secondary Community law provisions, or does it extend, as a category of abuse of fundamental freedoms, to matters involving non-harmonised taxes, such as direct taxes, where the tax relates to transnational financial matters, such as the acquisition by a company of rights of usufruct over the shares of a second company established in another Member State or in a non-Member State?
1.

Is there a ‘transfer’ of a totality of assets within the meaning of Article 5(8) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) 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 in the case where a trader transfers ownership of the stock and shop installations of his retail outlet to a purchaser and merely leases the premises which he owns to the purchaser?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/12

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischen Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 23 August 2010 — Wolfgang Hofmann v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-419/10)

()

2010/C 301/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wolfgang Hofmann

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Question referred

Are Article 2(1) and Article 11(4), second sentence, of Directive 2006/126/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State must refuse to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State to a person outside a period during which that person was prohibited from applying for a new licence, in the case where that person’s driving licence had been withdrawn in the national territory of the first Member State and that person’s normal place of residence at the time of the issue of the driving licence was in the national territory of the issuing Member State?

(1) OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.
—

Declare that, by virtue of the fact that in the course of the award of a public contract for the supply and management of automatic coffee machines, published under No 2004/S 158-213630, the contracting authority — inserted in the technical specification a requirement for the Max Havelaar and EKO-keurmerk, or in any event marks with a similar or the same basis, thus contrary to Article 23(6) and (8) of Directive 2004/18/EC, (1) — included, for appraising the ability of operators, criteria and evidence concerning sustainable purchasing and socially responsible undertakings, thus contrary to Article 48(1) and (2), Article 44(2), and in any event Article 2, of that directive, — included, when formulating the award criteria, a reference to the Max Havelaar and/or EKO-keurmerk, or in any event marks with the same basis, thus contrary to Article 53(1) of that directive, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2004/18/EC;
1.

Does Directive 2006/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (the data storage directive), and in particular Articles 3, 4, 5 and 11 thereof, preclude the application of a national provision which is based on Article 8 of Directive 2004/48/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights and which permits an internet service provider in civil proceedings, in order to identify a particular subscriber, to be ordered to give a copyright holder or its representative information on the subscriber to whom the internet service provider provided a specific IP address, which address, it is claimed, was used in the infringement? The question is based on the assumption that the applicant has adduced evidence of the infringement of a particular copyright and that the measure is proportionate.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/10

Appeal brought on 10 June 2010 by Franssons Verkstäder AB against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 May 2010 in Case T-98/10: Franssons Verkstäder v OHIM and Lindner Recyclingtech (Chaff Cutters)

(Case C-290/10 P)

()

2010/C 328/17

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Franssons Verkstäder AB (represented by: O. Öhlén, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

By order of 09 September 2010 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/32

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 October 2010 — Asociación para la Calidad de los Forjados (ASCAFOR), Asociación de Importadores y Distribuidores del Acero para la Construcción (ASIDAC) v Administración del Estado, Calidad Siderúrgica SL, Colegio de Ingenieros Técnicos Industriales, Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación (AENOR), Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Aparejadores y Arquitectos Técnicos, Asociación de Investigación de las Industrias de la Construcción (AIDICO) Instituto Tecnológico de la Construcción, Asociación Nacional Española de Fabricantes de Hormigón Preparado (ANEFHOP), Ferrovial Agromán SA, Agrupación de Fabricantes de Cemento de España (OFICEMEN), Asociación de Aceros Corrugados Reglamentarios y su Tecnología y Calidad (ACERTEQ)

(Case C-484/10)

()

2010/C 346/54

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Asociación para la Calidad de los Forjados (ASCAFOR), Asociación de Importadores y Distribuidores del Acero para la Construcción (ASIDAC)

Defendants: Administración del Estado, Calidad Siderúrgica SL, Colegio de Ingenieros Técnicos Industriales, Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación (AENOR), Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Aparejadores y Arquitectos Técnicos, Asociación de Investigación de las Industrias de la Construcción (AIDICO) Instituto Tecnológico de la Construcción, Asociación Nacional Española de Fabricantes de Hormigón Preparado (ANEFHOP), Ferrovial Agromán SA, Agrupación de Fabricantes de Cemento de España (OFICEMEN), Asociación de Aceros Corrugados Reglamentarios y su Tecnología y Calidad (ACERTEQ)

Question referred

Can the exhaustive provisions contained in Annex 19 to Royal Decree No 1247/08 of 18 July 2008, in conjunction with Article 81 thereof, relating to the granting of official recognition of labels of quality be considered to be excessive and disproportionate to the objective pursued and to involve an unjustified restriction which renders the recognition of the equivalence of certificates more difficult and to be an obstacle to or a restriction of the marketing of imported products contrary to Articles 28 and 30 EC?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/26

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Edipower SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

(Case C-332/10)

()

2010/C 346/43

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Edipower SpA

Defendant: Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

Question referred

Do Articles 23, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty and Article 11(2) and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 54/03/EC (1) preclude national legislation which, without the European Commission having been notified, requires on a permanent basis certain electricity producers which are, in certain circumstances, essential for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the demand for dispatching services, to submit bids on the energy exchange markets, in accordance with programmes determined by the network operator in accordance with external rules, and which prevents producers from freely determining the remuneration for such bids by linking the remuneration to criteria that have not been pre-determined according to transparent, non-discriminatory and market-based procedures?

(1) OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/18

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland made on 15 October 2010 — M. E. and others v Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

(Case C-493/10)

()

2011/C 13/32

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: M. E. and others

Defendants: Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Questions referred

1. Is the transferring Member State under Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 (1) obliged to assess the compliance of the receiving Member State with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the EU, Council Directives 2003/9EC (2), 2004/83/EC (3) and 2005/85/EC (4) and Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003?

2. If the answer is yes, and if the receiving Member State is found not to be in compliance with one or more of those provisions, is the transferring Member Sate obliged to accept responsibility for examining the application under Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national

OJ L 50, p. 1

(2) Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers

OJ L 31, p. 18

(3) Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted

OJ L 304, p. 2

(4) Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status

OJ L 326, p. 13
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/21

Action brought on 29 October 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-516/10)

()

2011/C 13/38

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by maintaining in force Paragraph 5 in conjunction with Paragraph 2(3) and (4) and Paragraph 6(2)(g) of the VGVG, the Republic of Austria has infringed Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU;

— Declare that, by maintaining in force Paragraph 6(2)(d) in conjunction with Paragraph 2(3) and (4) of the VGVG, the Republic of Austria has infringed Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU;

— Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission does not question the fact that Member States may restrict the purchase of plots of land on grounds of public interest. However, the provisions of the Vorarlberger Grundverkehrsgesetz (VGVG) cited in the forms of order sought constitute a disproportionate restriction on the free movement of capital and the right of establishment.

In particular, the so-called Interessentenregel (‘interested parties rule’), according to which the VGVG landowners take precedence in purchases of agricultural land over non-landowners, is disproportionate. The continued agricultural use of the land can, according to the defendant, thus be guaranteed if the potential purchaser is willing to lease the land on a long-term basis to the previous tenant.

Similarly, it is not apparent why the interested parties rule should also apply where the previous owner includes his plot of land as an asset in kind in an undertaking or a foundation, although the continued agricultural use of the land is ensured.

In the view of the Commission, it is also disproportionate that the abovementioned interested parties rule is repeatedly applied where the purchase is not completed for reasons unconnected with the vendor.

Finally, the Commission disputes that the VGVG does not provide for any kind of regulation which permits, in the case of a lack of interest from landowners in the exploitation of a plot of agricultural land, that land to be sold without an obligation on the purchaser to use it for agricultural purposes.