ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 24(1) of Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment, (1) or by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the defendant had failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1.

Are Articles 2, 10(1) and (4) and 24(2) of Directive 2009/103 (1), Articles 3(4), 5(1) and (4), 6(1) and 10 of the Internal Regulations, and Article 47 of the Charter (together or separately, but without limitation to the aforementioned provisions) to be understood and interpreted as meaning that, in the case where: — a national insurers’ bureau (Bureau A) pays compensation to the party injured in a road traffic accident in the Member State in which that bureau is established because the national of another Member State who was responsible for the damage was not insured against civil liability; — by reason of that compensation, Bureau A is subrogated to the injured party in his rights and seeks reimbursement of the costs incurred in the settlement of the claim from the national insurers’ bureau in the country of origin of the person responsible (Bureau B); — Bureau B, without carrying out any independent investigation or requesting additional information, accedes to the request for reimbursement made by Bureau A; — Bureau B brings legal proceedings against the defendants (the person responsible and the owner of the vehicle) seeking indemnification of the expenses which it incurred, the applicant in those proceedings (Bureau B) can base its claim against the defendants (the person responsible and the owner of the vehicle) solely on the fact of the payment of the costs made to Bureau A and it (the applicant) is not under any obligation to establish that the conditions governing the civil liability of the defendant/person responsible were satisfied (his fault, unlawful acts, the causal link and the amount of damage), and is not under any obligation to establish that the foreign law was properly applied when the injured party was compensated?
2.

May the criminal provision of Article 26(1)(28) of the Croatian law on consumer credit, in the context described above, be interpreted consistently with Article 23 of the directive and in the light of the transitory provisions in Article 30 thereof, as meaning that the penalties laid down for breach of a national provision adopted on the basis of the directive in question may not be applied to breaches that may be found in respect of credit agreements ongoing at the date of the implementation of the national implementing measures?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/22

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 3 November 2015 — Onix Asigurari SA v Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (Ivass)

(Case C-559/15)

(2016/C 038/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Onix Asigurari SA

Respondent: Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (Ivass)

Question referred

Does Community law, in particular Article 40(6) of Directive 92/49/EEC, (1) Commission Interpretative Communication 2000/C/43/03, paragraph 5, and the Community principle of home country control preclude an interpretative approach (such as that applied to Article 193(4) of the Codice delle Assicurazioni private, the Private Insurance Code) approved by Legislative Decree No 209 of 7 September 2005, endorsed by this Court) in accordance with which the supervisory authority of a State hosting an insurance operator under the freedom to provide services may, in cases of urgency and for the protection of the interests of insured persons and of persons entitled to insurance benefits, issue injunctions specifically prohibiting the conclusion of new contracts within the territory of the host State, on the grounds of the identified failure, whether pre-existing or supervening, assessed discretionarily, to satisfy a subjective precondition laid down for the purpose of the issue of authorisation to engage in insurance business, in particular the requirement of good repute?

(1) Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 2 November 2015 — LitSpecMet UAB v Vilniaus lokomotyvų remonto depas UAB

(Case C-567/15)

(2016/C 027/15)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus apygardos teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LitSpecMet UAB

Defendant: Vilniaus lokomotyvų remonto depas UAB

Third party: Plienmetas UAB

Questions referred

Must Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a company:

— which has been founded by a contracting authority which engages in activity in the field of rail transport, namely: management of public railway infrastructure; passenger and freight transportation;

— which independently engages in business activity, establishes a business strategy, adopts decisions concerning the conditions of the company’s activity (product market, customer segment and so forth), participates in a competitive market throughout the European Union and outside the EU market, providing the services of rolling stock manufacture and rolling stock repair, and participates in procurement procedures connected with that activity, seeking to obtain orders from third parties (not the parent company);

— which provides rolling stock repair services to its founder on the basis of in-house transactions and the value of those services represents 90 per cent of the company’s entire activity;

— whose services provided to its founder are intended to ensure the founder’s passenger and freight transportation activity; is not to be considered to be a contracting authority?

If the Court of Justice of the European Union determines that the company is to be considered to be a contracting authority in the circumstances set out above, must Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC be interpreted as meaning that the company loses the status of contracting authority where the value of the rolling stock repair services provided on the basis of in-house transactions to the contracting authority which is the company’s founder falls and constitutes less than 90 per cent or not the main part of the total financial turnover from the company’s activity?

(1) Directive 2004/18/EC 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 (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).
2.

Does the first paragraph of Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU preclude national legislation according to which, where a trader operates a shared-cost service on an 0180 number for the purpose of consumers contacting the trader by telephone in relation to contracts concluded with the trader, a consumer must pay that which the telecommunications service provider charges the consumer for the use of that telecommunications service, even where those charges exceed those which the consumer would incur for calling a standard (geographic) fixed or mobile number? Does the first paragraph of Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU not preclude such national legislation where the telecommunications service provider does not pass on to the trader part of the charges that he receives from the consumer for contacting the trader on the 0180 number?
1.

Does it affect the proprietor’s exclusive right that, within a period of five years following registration, he has not made genuine use of the Community trade mark in the European Union for goods or services covered by the registration?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/8

Appeal brought on 30 July 2015 by Fernando Brás Messias against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2015 in Case T-192/15 Fernando Brás Messias v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-422/15 P)

(2016/C 048/12)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Fernando Brás Messias (represented by: F. Brás Messias, advogado)

Other party to the proceedings: Portuguese Republic

By order of 15 December 2015, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the action as inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 27 November 2015 — Carlos Álvarez Santirso v Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte del Principado de Asturias

(Case C-631/15)

(2016/C 068/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Oviedo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Carlos Álvarez Santirso

Defendant: Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte del Principado de Asturias

Question referred

Must Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement to which Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 on fixed-term work refers be interpreted as precluding regional legislation such as the Law of the Principality of Asturias 6/2009 of 29 December 2009 on public teaching evaluation and incentives which, under Article 2, makes eligibility for inclusion in the evaluation plan (with the resulting entitlement to the associated economic incentives) dependent on having the status of a career civil servant, thereby excluding interim civil servants?

(1) Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).
3.

In the view of the appellant, there are contradictions and failings in logic in the grounds of the General Court for determining the form of the use of the trade mark. The General Court stated that the sign used may differ only in ‘minor elements’ from the form in which it is registered and that the sign used and the trade mark as registered must be regarded, ‘on the whole, as equivalent’ for a finding of use such as to preserve the rights of the trade mark proprietor. In applying those assessment criteria, the General Court contradicted itself and erred in logic. In addition, the General Court used a rigid assessment for whether the three elements that it considered distinctive were present in the form of the trade mark used. With reference to those criteria, the General Court proceeded on the premiss of use such as to preserve the rights of the trade mark proprietor and failed to take into account that numerous new elements had been added to the form of its use, as a result of which the sign used and the trade mark as registered could no longer be regarded, ‘on the whole, as equivalent’.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 3 November 2015 — Konrad Erzberger v TUI AG

(Case C-566/15)

(2016/C 090/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Konrad Erzberger

Defendant: TUI AG

Question referred

Is it compatible with Article 18 TFEU (non-discrimination) and Article 45 TFEU (freedom of movement for workers) for a Member State to grant the right to vote and stand as a candidate for the employees’ representatives in the supervisory body of a company only to those workers who are employed in establishments of the company or in affiliated companies within the domestic territory?
2.

ln determining whether the supplies of restaurant services and entertainment services are within the exemption in article 132(1)(i) as services ‘closely related’ to the provision of education: a. is it relevant that the students benefit from being involved in the making of the supplies in question rather than from the subject matter of those supplies; b. is it relevant that those supplies are not received or consumed either directly or indirectly by the students but are received and consumed by those members of the public who pay for them and who are not recipients of the principal supply of education; c. is it relevant that, from the paint of view of the typical recipients of the services in question (that is to say, the members of the public who pay for them), the supplies do not represent a means of better enjoying any other supply but are an end in themselves; d. is it relevant that, from the point of view of the students, the supplies in question are not an end in themselves but participating in the making of the supplies represents a means of better enjoying the principal supply of education services; e. to what extent should the principle of fiscal neutrality be taken into account?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/17

Action brought on 20 November 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-616/15)

(2016/C 098/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Owsiany-Hornung and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by restricting, to groups whose members exercise a limited number of professions, the exemption from VAT for the supply by independent groups of persons carrying on an activity which is exempt from VAT, or in relation to which they are not taxable persons, of services to their members for the direct purposes of the exercise of that activity where those groups merely claim from their members exact reimbursement of their share of the joint expenses, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 132(1)(f) of the VAT directive; (1)

2. order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following:

Germany restricts to certain well-defined professions the exemption from VAT for the supply of services by independent groups of persons carrying on an activity which is exempt from VAT, or in relation to which they are not taxable persons, for the direct purposes of the exercise of that activity. The exemption under the German law on VAT covers solely groups whose members are either doctors or health professionals and hospitals or establishments similar to hospitals.

This is incompatible with Article 132(1)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax. Neither the wording, purpose, nor preparatory work leading to the adoption of Article 132(1)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC justifies such a restriction of the exemption from VAT to groups from certain professions. The exemption should, however, apply to groups from all professions provided that they exercise tax-exempt professions.

The restriction under the German law on VAT is also not justified by a potential general distortion of competition. This is because, as far as tax exemptions are concerned, the presence or absence of a distortion of competition can only apply with regard to the specific facts of a given case. Distortions of competition cannot be assessed in the abstract for certain professions of a group and services provided in connection with those professions.

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 136/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 31 December 2015 — Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA v SEA — Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA

(Case C-701/15)

(2016/C 136/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Malpensa Logistica Europa SpA

Defendant: SEA — Società Esercizi Aeroportuali SpA

Question referred

Does Article 7 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1), which requires the application of the EU rules governing the award of public contracts to activities relating to the exploitation of a geographical area for the purpose of the provision of airports to air carriers, as defined in the national case-law referred to in paragraphs 6.4 and 6.5 above, preclude national provisions, such as those set out in Articles 4 and 11 of Legislative Decree No 18/1999, which do not require a prior public selection procedure to be conducted for every allocation, including temporary allocations, of areas within airports for the purpose of such activities?

(1) Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici (Croatia) lodged on 18 December 2015 — Vodoopskrba i odvodnja d.o.o. v Željka Klafurić

(Case C-686/15)

(2016/C 111/07)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodoopskrba i odvodnja d.o.o.

Defendant: Željka Klafurić

Question referred

How is water supplied, which is invoiced by apartment in a residential building or by individual house, calculated under EU law? Do EU citizens pay the invoices concerning their water consumption by paying only for the consumption actually shown on the meter or do they pay other fees or charges in addition?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/15

Appeal brought on 10 November 2015 by Monster Energy Company against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-666/14: Monster Energy v EUIPO

(Case C-603/15 P)

(2016/C 270/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Monster Energy Company (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 4 May 2016 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
4.

Does Regulation EEC No 4055/1986, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, preclude the application of national legislation, such as Decree No 107/2009 of the President of the Republic, which requires payment of a fee that differs according to whether it relates to vessels coming from or going to a State outside the EU or vessels coming from or going to a port within the EU, where that difference may be justified by the performance of public authority functions but no determination has been made of the individual costs to be covered, so that it is not possible to verify, either beforehand or afterwards, the costs of which services have in fact been covered [or] in what way and to what extent that fee has in fact funded those services?
—

declare that, by failing to set up a national electronic register of road transport undertakings and to connect it up with the national electronic registers of the other Member States, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC (1);
1.

Does Article 39 EC (now Article 45 TFEU) preclude a provision of German law according to which contributions to the French pension and health insurance fund paid by an employee living in Germany but working for the French civil service — in contrast to comparable contributions paid by an employee working in Germany to the German social security fund — do not reduce the income tax basis of assessment, if, under the Convention between Germany and France for the avoidance of double taxation, the salary may not be taxed in Germany and only increases the tax rate to be applied to other income?
2.

Given the findings of the Court of Justice in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Joined Cases C-181/04 to C-183/04 Elmeka, according to which the exemption provided for in those rules could not be extended to services supplied at an earlier stage in the commercial chain, is Article 148(d) of Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as meaning that applies also to the services at issue in the case in main proceedings in which the service supplied by A Oy’s subcontractor in the first phase of operations concerns a service which has a direct physical relationship to the cargo, which A Oy invoices to the forwarding or transport company?
1.

Must Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which — without considering other criteria — lays down the obligation to cancel the registration of the rights of usufruct and rights of use burdening agricultural land, which have been registered in the name of companies or natural persons who are not close relatives of the proprietor of the land, without at the same time prescribing, in favour of the proprietors of the extinguished rights of usufruct and of use, compensation for the financial losses which, while it cannot be claimed in the context of the settlement of accounts between the parties, does arise from valid contracts?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 136/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stralsund (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2016 — HanseYachts AG v Port D’Hiver Yachting SARL, Société Maritime Côte D’Azur, Companie Generali IARD SA

(Case C-29/16)

(2016/C 136/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Stralsund

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HanseYachts AG

Defendants: Port D’Hiver Yachting SARL, Société Maritime Côte D’Azur, Companie Generali IARD SA

Question referred

Where the procedural law of a Member State provides for independent proceedings for the taking of evidence in which, by order of the court, an expert report is obtained (in this case the ‘expertise judiciaire’ in French law), and where such independent proceedings for the taking of evidence are conducted in that Member State and an action based on the findings of those independent proceedings is subsequently brought in the same Member State between the same parties:

In that case, is the document by which the independent proceedings for the taking of evidence were instituted a ‘document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document’ within the meaning of Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001? (1) Or is it only the document by which the action is brought that is to be regarded as being the ‘document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document’?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
1.

In so far as Article 9(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) requires that, in order for the proprietor of a Community trade mark to prevent a third party not having his consent from using a sign in the course of trade in the cases set out in that provision, there should exist a likelihood of confusion, can this provision be interpreted as meaning that there is no likelihood of confusion where the earlier Community trade mark has, owing to the acquiescence of the proprietor, peacefully coexisted for some years with similar national trade marks in two Member States of the European Union, so that the absence of a likelihood of confusion in those two Member States is extended to other Member States, or to the European Union as a whole, regard being had to the unitary treatment that the Community trade mark requires?