ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Do the following obligations to pay the costs arising under a guarantee, derived from a number of counter-guarantee agreements concluded, as part of a chain of agreements, for the purpose of issuing a bank guarantee in favour of the Libyan Housing and Infrastructure Board (‘HIB’), fall within the scope of Regulation No 204/2011 (1) or, as the case may be, Regulation No 2016/44: (2) 1.1. where, under a counter-guarantee agreement, a bank established in the European Union has an obligation to pay the costs to a Libyan bank which is included on the prohibition list in Annex III to Regulation No 204/2011; 1.2. where, under a counter-guarantee agreement, a bank established in the European Union has an obligation to pay the costs to a Libyan bank which is not included on the prohibition list in Annex III to Regulation No 204/2011 but the bank guarantee is issued in favour of HIB, which is included on that list; 1.3. where, during the period following the amendment of Regulation No 204/2011 by Regulation No 45/2014, Regulation No 204/2011 prohibits direct or indirect payments to any Libyan entity; 1.4. where the obligation to pay the costs arising under the guarantee derives from a counter-guarantee agreement concluded, in the context of the relationship between two banks established in the European Union, within a chain of agreements, for the purpose of issuing a bank guarantee in favour of HIB; 1.5. where calculation of the costs arising under the guarantee takes place after expiry of the guarantee period, in legal proceedings, after the entry into force of Regulation No 2016/44?
—

Give a final judgment in the matter that is the subject of this appeal and hold that the General Court was wrong in law to decline jurisdiction and order the respondent in case T-192/16 to pay the costs of the appellant in respect of the order of the General Court and of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this appeal;
3.

If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, in the event that a manufacturer, having made use of the procedure referred to in the second paragraph of Annex III, and when there are harmonised standards defining the essential radio test suites to be carried out, has nonetheless subsequently voluntarily consulted a notified body, asking it to confirm the list of tests mentioned above, and has voluntarily ensured that the product is accompanied by the identification number of the body consulted, must that manufacturer also quote that body’s identification number on both the product and its packaging?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 April 2017 — Heinrich Denker v Gemeinde Thedinghausen

(Case C-206/17)

(2017/C 249/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and Appellant on a point of law: Heinrich Denker

Defendant and Respondent on a point of law: Gemeinde Thedinghausen

Other party to the proceedings: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (The Representative of the Federal interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht)

Question referred

Is Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU (1) 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) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which an irregularity in connection with public participation in the procedure for the preparation of a building development plan by way of municipal by-law is regarded as irrelevant if, notwithstanding notice of the complaints procedure having been given, no complaint regarding that irregularity is made to the municipality within one year of the publication of the plan, and the provisions of Directive 2011/92/EU on public participation apply to that plan?

(1) OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1.
2.

Does a national law under which only its own nationals are not extradited outside the EU for the enforcement of a penalty unjustifiably disadvantage nationals of another Member State? Are the mechanisms of EU law by means of which an objective, acceptable as such, may be achieved in a less prejudicial manner applicable also in an enforcement situation? How is a request for extradition to be answered in a situation in which, such mechanisms being applied, the request is notified to another Member State which, however, does not, for example because of legal obstacles, adopt measures concerning its nationals?
(c)

Can a Member State authority which decides to grant an aid — on the erroneous assumption that it is an aid that accords with the block exemption requirements, but which is in fact an unlawful aid — engender a legitimate expectation on the part of the aid recipients? Is, in particular, the fact that the Member State authority is aware, on granting the unlawful aid, of the circumstances causing the aid not to be covered by the block exemption sufficient to give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the recipients? If the preceding question is answered affirmatively, must the public interest and the interest of the individual be weighed against one another? In the context of that weighing-up of interests, is it significant whether, in relation to the aid at issue, the European Commission has adopted a decision declaring it incompatible with the common market?
3.

If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, it is open to the Member States not to make the ‘must carry’ obligation, on the part of service distributors not providing electronic communications networks, subject to all the conditions laid down in Article 31(1) of Directive 2002/22/EC of 7 March 2002, even though the fulfilment of those conditions is required on the part of network operators under the Directive?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/25

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2017 — K.M. Zyla v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-272/17)

(2017/C 277/36)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: K.M. Zyla

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Must Article 45 TFEU be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a worker who, pursuant to Regulation No 1408/71 (1) or Regulation No 883/2004, (2) is insured under the social security system of the Member State concerned for part of a calendar year, and who, when the contributions for that insurance are levied, is entitled to only a portion of the contributions component of the general tax credit which is determined on a time-proportionate basis in relation to the period of insurance, if that worker, for the remainder of the calendar year, was not insured under the social security system of that Member State, and was resident in another Member State for the remainder of the calendar year and earned (virtually) his entire annual income in the first-mentioned Member State?

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).
3.

In an action seeking compensation for damage, is a procedural provision of a Member State which allows judicial proceedings to be brought against an administrative decision only on the basis of the legal arguments submitted in proceedings before the public procurement arbitration committee — and the injured party can rely, as a ground for the alleged infringement, on the unlawfulness, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, of his exclusion on the basis of a conflict of interest only in a manner which, in accordance with the actual rules of the negotiated procedure, result in his exclusion from the contract award procedure for another reason, as there has been a change in his application — contrary to EU law and, in particular, to the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, or capable of having an effect which runs counter to that law or those principles?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/26

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 30 May 2017 — People Over Wind, Peter Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta

(Case C-323/17)

(2017/C 277/38)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: People Over Wind, Peter Sweetman

Defendant: Coillte Teoranta

Question referred

Whether, or in what circumstances, mitigation measures can be considered when carrying out screening for appropriate assessment under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (1)?

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992, L 206, p. 7).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 293/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 29 June 2017 — Konkurrensverket v SJ AB

(Case C-388/17)

(2017/C 293/23)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Konkurrensverket

Defendant: SJ AB

Questions referred

1. Must the second subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Directive 2004/17 (1) be interpreted as meaning that there is a network in the field of transport services when transport services on a State-administered rail network for national and international rail traffic are provided in accordance with provisions in national legislation which implement Directive 2012/34 (2), which involve the allocation of rail infrastructure capacity on the basis of requests from railway companies and a requirement that all requests are to be met so far as possible?

2. Must the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Directive 2004/17 be interpreted as meaning that an activity which is carried out by a railway company such as is referred to in Directive 2012/34 and which entails the provision of transport services to the public on a rail network constitutes the provision or operation of a network as referred to in that provision of the directive?

(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 (Utilities Directive) (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).

(2) Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32).
3.

Is EU law, in particular Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in conjunction with Article 7(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC, to be interpreted as meaning that the national legislation referred to in the first question is a positive and specific measure in favour of the members of the churches mentioned in the first question which is designed to guarantee their full equality in working life, to prevent or offset disadvantages to those members due to religion, if they are thereby granted the same right to practise a religion during working hours on what is an important holiday for that religion, such as otherwise exists for the majority of employees in accordance with a separate provision of national law, because generally no work is performed on the holidays for the religion that is observed by the majority of employees? If it is found that there is discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78/EC:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 300/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 19 June 2017 — Vision Research Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

(Case C-372/17)

(2017/C 300/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vision Research Europe BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

Question referred

Is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 (1) of 4 February 2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature valid if the Rechtbank is correct in its provisional view that subheading 8525 80 30 should be interpreted as meaning that the camera, as described in 2 and 12 above, which has a volatile memory whereby the images captured in the camera are lost when subsequent images are captured or when the camera is switched off, can be classified thereunder?

(1) OJ 2014 L 38, p. 20.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/31

Appeal brought on 31 July 2017 by Rami Makhlouf against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 May 2017 in Case T-410/16, Rami Makhlouf v Council of the European Union

(Case C-458/17 P)

(2017/C 309/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Rami Makhlouf (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present appeal to be admissible and well founded;

consequently,

— set aside the judgment of 18 May 2017 delivered by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-410/16, Rami Makhlouf v Council of the European Union, ECLI:EU:T:2017:349;

and

adjudge the case afresh and accordingly:

— annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 (1) and the subsequent measures implementing that decision, in so far as they relate to the appellant; and

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that the General Court infringed the appellant’s right to be heard, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, prior to the adoption of the new restrictive measures;

The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law consisting of a distortion of facts, in that the General Court disregarded the articles lodged by the appellant in support of his action for annulment and designed to demonstrate that he did not support the Syrian regime;

The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that the General Court did not find the provisions of Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, (2) under which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, to be unlawful, while at the same time reversing the burden of proof;

The fourth ground of appeal alleges an error of law and a failure to state reasons in that the General Court took the view that the concept of a ‘prominent businessman’ was sufficiently precise to include the appellant on the lists of persons and entities covered by the restrictive measures and that it failed to justify why it took the view that the appellant had influence over the Syrian regime.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125).

(2) Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 318/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Zalaegerszegi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 18 July 2017 — Human Operator Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

(Case C-434/17)

(2017/C 318/15)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Zalaegerszegi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Human Operator Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

Question referred

Must Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2349 (1) of 10 December 2015 be interpreted as precluding the Hungarian practice of considering that the provision of national law, approval of which derives from the abovementioned Implementing Decision and which establishes a derogation from Article 193 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC, entered into force on 1 January 2015, the date from which it must be applied, when that Implementing Decision contains no provision concerning retroactivity of its effects or of its applicability and, in its request for authorisation to establish the derogation, Hungary indicated that date as the date of application?

(1) Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2349 of 10 December 2015 authorising Hungary to apply a measure derogating from Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax; OJ 2015 L 330, p. 53.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 318/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Andreas Niemeyer v Brussels Airlines SA/NV

(Case C-269/17)

(2017/C 318/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Andreas Niemeyer

Defendant: Brussels Airlines SA/NV

Question referred

Is the second sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) (‘the Regulation’) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘distance’ relates only to the direct distance calculated between the point of departure and the last destination on the basis of the ‘great circle’ method, regardless of the distance actually flown?

(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.
(h)

whether it is compatible with the attainment of the objectives of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended that details of the construction phase (such as the compound location and haul routes) can be left to post-consent decision, and if so whether it is open to a competent authority to permit such matters to be determined by unilateral decision by the developer, within the context of any development consent granted, to be notified to the competent authority rather than approved by it;
2.

In the same circumstances of reintroduction of controls at internal borders, do that regulation and Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally (2) staying third-country nationals permit the application to the situation of a third-country national crossing a border at which controls have been reintroduced of the power, conferred on them by Article 2(2)(a) of the directive, to continue to apply simplified national return procedures at their external borders?
5.

Must Article 2(8) of Directive 2014/40/EU be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a tobacco product to be intended ‘to be chewed’, it is additionally necessary, but also sufficient, for the repeated exertion of light pressure on the tobacco product using the teeth or tongue to cause more of the ingredients in the product to be released than if the product is simply kept in the mouth?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2017 — Tänzer & Trasper GmbH v Altenweddinger Geflügelhof Kommanditgesellschaft

(Case C-462/17)

(2017/C 347/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tänzer & Trasper GmbH

Defendant: Altenweddinger Geflügelhof Kommanditgesellschaft

Question referred

Are the components listed in category 41 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 (1) the minimum components that a spirit drink must contain in order to be permitted to bear the sales denomination ‘egg liqueur’ (a minimum specification) or is category 41 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 an exhaustive list of the components that are permissible in a product seeking to bear the sales denomination ‘egg liqueur’?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89, OJ 2008 L 39, p. 16.
2)

determine that the Court itself can adjudicate on the merits of the appellant’s claims for damages and accordingly a) order the EU, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to compensate Guardian Europe for the damages caused as a result of the General Court’s failure to rule within a reasonable time, in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, namely the following amounts: (i) opportunity costs/loss of profit of € 1 388 000; (ii) additional guarantee costs of € 143 675,78; and (iii) non-pecuniary losses expressed as an appropriate percentage of the fine imposed on Guardian in the decision; b) order the EU, represented by the Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union, to compensate Guardian for damages caused because of the Commission and the General Court’s infringement of the principle of equal treatment, namely the following amounts: (i) opportunity costs/loss of profit of € 7 712 000; and (ii) nonpecuniary losses expressed as an appropriate percentage of the fine imposed on Guardian in the Decision; c) award compensatory interest on the amounts in (a) (starting from 27 July 2010 up to the date of this Court’s judgment on this appeal) and (b) (starting from 19 November 2010 up to the date of this Court’s judgment on this appeal), at the annual rate of inflation determined, for the period in question, by Eurostat in the Member State (Luxembourg) where Guardian Europe is established; d) award default interest on the amounts in (a) and (b), starting from the date of this Court’s judgment on this appeal until full payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;