ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 30 July 2015 — Criminal proceedings against U (*1)

(Case C-420/15)

(2015/C 346/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Party to the main proceedings

U (*1)

Question referred

Are Articles 2 and 3 of the Royal Decree of 20 July 2001 on the registration of vehicles incompatible with Articles 18, 20, 45, 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in that, in order to be driven in Belgium, even if only in order to pass through the country, vehicles belonging to a resident of a Member State of the European Union other than Belgium and registered in that other State must be registered in Belgium, if that person is also a Belgian resident?

(*1) Information erased within the framework of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.
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-633/14: Monster Energy v EUIPO

(Case C-602/15 P)

(2016/C 270/22)

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 (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
(a)

If the compatibility with EU law of the ‘anti-abuse’ mechanism mentioned above should have to be assessed having regard to the provisions of the Treaty too, must it be examined, having regard to the purpose of the legislation at issue, in the light of the provisions of Article 43 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, now Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, even though the company receiving the dividend distribution is controlled directly or indirectly, as a result of a chain of interests which has among its principal purposes the benefit of the exemption, by one or more residents of third States that may not avail themselves of freedom of establishment?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/12

Action brought on 18 January 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-30/16)

(2016/C 090/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2006/126/EC, (1) since it has not fully transposed Article 4(1) and (3)(b), (4)(d), (f) and (h), Article 6(2) and Article 7(2)(b) of that directive;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The relevant provisions were to be adopted and published not later than 19 January 2011 and applied as from 19 January 2013.

(1) Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (Recast) (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/21

Appeal brought on 12 February 2016 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission

(Case C-81/16 P)

(2016/C 118/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Grant the appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission;

— Annul Commission Decision 2014/489/UE (1) of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/10) (ex NN 36/10, ex CP 163/09) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha);

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Error of law relating to the control of Member States regarding the definition and application of a service of general economic interest. As regards the first condition laid down in the judgment in Altmark, (2) the General Court refused to check whether or not the Commission had examined all the relevant factors in assessing the definition of a public service. Likewise, the General Court failed to check whether or not the Commission had examined all the relevant elements in order to assess whether the fourth condition laid down in the judgment in Altmark had been fulfilled. Accordingly, the General Court infringed the discretion allowing a Member State to organise its public service.

Error of law relating to judicial control of the compatibility of State aid. In the first place, the General Court failed to check the accuracy of the facts on which the Commission based its analysis. Accordingly, the judgment fails to review the reliability, consistency and relevance of the data used by the Commission. Finally, the General Court failed to check the validity of the Commission’s conclusions.

(1) OJ 2014 L 217, p. 52.

(2) EU:C:2003:415.
2.

The scheme as referred to under 8 seeks to make impossible certain forms of retail trade, such as the sale of shoes and clothing, in areas outside the city centre with a view to maintaining the viability of the city centre and preventing vacant premises in inner city areas. Does a rule relating to such a scheme, having regard to recital 9 of the Services Directive, fall outside the scope of the Services Directive, because such rules must be regarded as pertaining to ‘town and country planning … which do not specifically regulate or specifically affect the service activity but have to be respected by providers in the course of carrying out their economic activity in the same way as by individuals acting in their private capacity’?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/20

Action brought on 3 February 2016 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-62/16)

(2016/C 145/26)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Petrova, M. Heller and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Romania

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of Directive 2012/33/EU (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

— order Romania, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty of EUR 38 042,60 for each day of delay in complying with its obligation to communicate the measures necessary to ensure full transposition of Directive 2012/33/EU, with effect from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

— order Romania to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 18 June 2014.

(1) Directive 2012/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 amending Council Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels (OJ 2012 L 327, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 22 January 2016 — Minister Finansów v Posnania Investment SA

(Case C-36/16)

(2016/C 145/21)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Minister Finansów

Respondent: Posnania Investment SA

Question referred

Does the transfer of ownership of land (tangible property) by a person taxable for VAT purposes to: (a) the State Treasury — in settlement of tax arrears in respect of taxes constituting State budget revenues; or (b) a municipality, district or regional authority — in settlement of tax arrears in respect of taxes constituting their budget revenues, resulting in the discharge of tax liabilities, constitute a transaction that is subject to tax (supply of goods for consideration) within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) and Article 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (1)

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
2.

Is it possible to interpret the right to respect for private and family life, home and communications, laid down in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the right to the protection of personal data laid down in Article 8 thereof to the effect that, where there is an alleged infringement of the right to the protection of personal data, which, with respect to the European Union, is implemented primarily through Directive 95/46/EC, and entails, in particular: — the obligation on Member States to protect the right to privacy of persons with respect to the processing of their personal data (Article [1](1)) and, — the authorisation conferred on Member States to process personal data where the processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest (Article 7, point (e)) or the processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, — and having regard to the authorisation [to restrict that right], by way of an exception, conferred on a Member State (Article 13(1)(e) and (f)), when such a restriction constitutes necessary measures to safeguard an important economic or financial interest of a Member State or of the European Union, including monetary, budgetary and taxation matters, those rights do not allow a Member State to create, without the consent of the person concerned, a register of personal data for the purposes of tax administration, so that the fact that personal data is rendered at the disposal of a public authority for the purposes of countering tax fraud in itself constitutes a risk?
2.

If a contract imposing unreasonable hardship on the seller or supplier cannot continue in existence, would the national court be entitled to save the contract, in the interests of protecting the consumer, by applying a provision of supplementary law, or would it have to remedy the contract with a rule that is minimally tolerable for the seller or supplier?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 191/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 4 March 2016 — Christian Ferenschild v JPC Motor SA

(Case C-133/16)

(2016/C 191/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christian Ferenschild

Defendant: JPC Motor SA

Question referred

Must Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) thereof, (1) be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which is interpreted as allowing, for second-hand goods, the limitation period for action by the consumer to expire before the end of the two-year period as from delivery of goods which are not in conformity with the contract, where the seller and the consumer have agreed on a guarantee period of less than two years?

(1) OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12.
b)

Second plea: The General Court erred in law in concluding that the methodology applied by the European Commission to calculate Toshiba’s fine did not infringe the principle of equal treatment; in particular in so far as the Commission used the starting amount calculated for the joint venture TM T&D as a basis to calculate Toshiba’s fine, and not a turnover relevant to Toshiba, contrary to what the Commission did for the European addressees of the decision adopted in 2007; and
4.

In their last response of 23 March 2015 the Greek authorities informed the Commission that: — a new dossier of amendments to the Decision defining the environmental terms of the landfill site with a view to the specification of various works which must be carried out in order that the landfill site should operate correctly has been adopted; — further to the inspection of 8 August 2014 (and the confirmation of new infringements) the procedure for the imposition of administrative penalties, on the operator, has been again initiated by the local authorities; — various essential works remain underway, such as for example the works relating to the processing of biogas (the Commission observes that the Greek authorities report now and for the first time that the amendment of the environmental terms of the landfill site is a wholly necessary precondition for the completion of those works); — the procedure for finding a site for the new landfill site which has to be installed on the island has still not been completed.
1.

Must Articles 102 and 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that one and the same action of a State-owned undertaking may simultaneously be analysed from the point of view of the existence of State aid (as regards the possible grant of State aid to a client or trading partner) and from the point of view of abuse of a dominant position (discriminatory pricing)?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 March 2016 — Ljiljana Kammerer, Frank Kammerer v Swiss International Air Lines AG

(Case C-172/16)

(2016/C 211/40)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ljiljana Kammerer, Frank Kammerer

Defendant: Swiss International Air Lines AG

Question referred

Is the Agreement on air transport between the Swiss Confederation and the European Community of 21 June 1999, as amended by Decision No 2/2010 of the Community/Switzerland Air Transport Committee of 26 November 2010, to be interpreted as meaning that Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) is also applicable, in accordance with Article 3(1)(a) thereof, to passengers who intend to land in an airport in Switzerland on a flight from a third country?

(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).
3.

Must Article 3(3) of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings be interpreted as meaning that the Member State in which the new criminal proceedings are taking place may not change the manner of execution of the penalty imposed by the Member State which issued the earlier sentence, including in the event that, under the national law of the second Member State, the penalty imposed by the earlier judgment must absorb another sanction or be included in it or must be enforced separately?
2.

Having regard to the fact that, under Article 299 TFEU, enforcement of acts of the European Commission which impose a pecuniary obligation on persons other than Member States is to be governed by the rules of civil procedure in force in the State in the territory of which enforcement is proceeded with and that, under that article, the courts of the country concerned are to have jurisdiction over complaints that enforcement is being carried out in an irregular manner, how is the jurisdiction of the national courts over disputes which arise from such enforcement determined, when under national law those disputes are administrative disputes as to the substance, that is to say, when the underlying relationship is one of public law?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/15

Appeal brought on 4 February 2016 by Actega Terra GmbH against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 November 2015 in Case T-766/14 Actega Terra GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-63/16 P)

(2016/C 260/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Actega Terra GmbH (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Heidelberger Druckmaschinen

By order of 24 May 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 8 April 2016 — Commune di Loro Piceno and Others v Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 — Ambiente

(Case C-197/16)

(2016/C 251/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comune di Loro Piceno, Marcello Bartolini, Filippo Bruè, Sergio Forti, Stefano Piatti, Gaetano Silvetti, Gianfranco Silvetti, Rocco Tirabasso, Sante Vagni, Albergo Ristorante Le Grazie Sas di Forti Sergio & Co., Suolificio Elefante Srl, Suolificio Roxy Srl, Aldo Alessandrini

Defendants: Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 — Ambiente

Question referred

On a constructive interpretation of Article 191 TFEU and Article 2 of Directive 2011/92/EU, (1) is it compatible with EU law to proceed with the verification of whether an environmental impact assessment needs to be undertaken (and possibly thereafter to carry out an environmental impact assessment) after the construction of the plant where the consent has been annulled by the national court due to a failure to verify whether the environmental impact assessment was needed, because such a verification had been excluded on the basis of a national law which was contrary to EU law?

(1) Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1).
2.

Do Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 preclude a provision of law enacted by a Member State under which, in criminal proceedings, an accused person who has no place of residence in that Member State must nominate a person authorised to accept service of a penalty order made against him, and service on a person authorised to accept service is automatically sufficient for the purpose of calculating the period within which an objection may be lodged, where, in the event of failure to comply with the period calculated in this way, the accused person can apply to have his position restored to the status quo ante and, in those circumstances, an adequate excuse for such failure is that the penalty order was forwarded to him and, after it had been forwarded, he lodged an objection within the prescribed period, that is to say where, by having his position restored to the status quo ante, he can retroactively rely on the unreduced period for lodging an objection, even though, by law, a penalty order is generally declared enforceable in the event of failure to comply with the period for lodging an objection?
2.

As regards the concept of an abnormally low offer: distortion of the assessments of the evaluation committee and breach of the obligation to state the grounds on which a judgment is based; distortion of the procedural documents and contradictory reasoning as the General Court substituted its own reasoning for that of the evaluation committee.
2.

In so far as the applicability of the Treaties with regard to extradition between Member States and the United States of America is not excluded from the outset: Is the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU and the case-law of the Court of Justice relating to that provision to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State unjustifiably breaches the prohibition of discrimination under the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU in the case where, on the basis of a rule of constitutional law (the first sentence of Article 16(2) of the Grundgesetz), it treats, in the matter of requests for extradition received from third countries, its own nationals and nationals of other EU Member States differently inasmuch as it extradites only the latter?
2.

Having regard to the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, does Article 183 of Directive 2006/112 preclude national legislation under which, in the event of late payment of a sum, payment of default interest is excluded in the case where, in the context of an investigation concerning the refund of that sum, the taxable person was fined by the authority in connection with the obligation to cooperate, even though the investigation, which lasted several years, was significantly delayed for reasons which cannot principally be attributed to the taxable person?
1.

Is Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/49/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Article 1(4) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that a company resident in a Member State that is covered by Article 3 of the Directive and, in circumstances such as those of the present case, receives interest from a subsidiary in another Member State, is the ‘beneficial owner’ of that interest for the purposes of the Directive? 1.1. Is the concept ‘beneficial owner’ in Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/49/EC, read in conjunction with Article 1(4) thereof, to be interpreted in accordance with the corresponding concept in Article 11 of the OECD 1977 Model Tax Convention? 1.2. If question 1.1. is answered in the affirmative, should the concept then be interpreted solely in the light of the commentary on Article 11 of the 1977 Model Tax Convention (paragraph 8), or can subsequent commentaries be incorporated into the interpretation, including the additions made in 2003 regarding ‘conduit companies’ (paragraph 8.1, now paragraph 10.1), and the additions made in 2014 regarding ‘contractual or legal obligations’ (paragraph 10.2)? 1.3. If the 2003 Commentaries can be incorporated into the interpretation, in that case of what significance is it in the assessment of whether a company can be deemed not to be a ‘beneficial owner’ for the purposes of Directive 2003/49/EC, if the interest in question is entered on the principal (‘rolled up’), if the interest recipient has had a contractual or legal obligation to pass the interest to another person and if most of the persons deemed by the State where the person paying the interest is resident to be the ‘beneficial owners’ of the interest are resident in other Member States or other States with which Denmark has entered into a double taxation convention, so that under domestic law there would not have been a basis for retaining tax at source had those persons been lenders and thereby received the interest directly? 1.4. What significance does it have for the assessment of the issue whether the interest recipient must be deemed to be a ‘beneficial owner’ for the purposes of the Directive if the referring court, following an assessment of the facts of the case, concludes that the recipient — without having been contractually or legally bound to pass the interest received to another person — did not have the ‘full’ right to ‘use and enjoy’ the interest as referred to in the 2014 Commentaries on the 1977 Model Tax Convention?