ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Does Article 43 EC, in conjunction with Article 48 EC, (now Article 49 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU) preclude national tax legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which denies relief from capital gains tax on distributions of profits made to a non-resident parent company which, within a group of undertakings actively trading in the Member State in which the parent company is established, is permanently spun off as a holding company, to the extent that persons have holdings in it who would not be entitled to the refund or exemption if they earned the income directly, and (1) there are no economic or other substantial reasons for the involvement of the non-resident parent company, or (2) the non-resident parent company does not earn more than 10 % of its entire gross income for the financial year in question from its own economic activity (there being no such activity, inter alia, if the foreign company earns its gross income from the management of assets), or (3) the non-resident parent company does not take part in general economic commerce with a business establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose, whereas resident holding companies are granted relief from capital gains tax without regard to the aforementioned requirements?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Emmea Srl and Commercial Hub Srl v Comune di Siracusa and Others

(Case C-595/16)

(2017/C 239/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Emmea Srl and Commercial Hub Srl

Defendants: Comune di Siracusa, Assessorato delle Attività Produttive per la Regione Siciliana, Libera Consorzio Comunale (formerly Provincia) di Siracusa, and Camera di Commercio di Siracusa

By order of 27 April 2017, the Court (Tenth Chamber) declared that the request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia, made by order of 20 October 2016, is manifestly inadmissible.
3.

The General Court ruled out the similarity among the conflicting marks based on the assumption that the relevant public … will not perceive in [the contested] mark the capital letter ‘G’, represented by the earlier marks, but rather an abstract ornamental motif. Moreover, having regard to the stylisation of the sign and to the fact that its elements are interlocking or joined together, it could be perceived both as reproducing stylised letters, such as the capital letter ‘X’ or the letter ‘e’ and as a combination of figures and letters, such as the figure ‘3’ and the letter ‘e’ (see, to that effect, paragraph 30 of the judgment under appeal). This assumption is the crucial point of the judgment under appeal, having led the General Court to rule out any similarity among the conflicting marks and, consequently, the applicability of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTM Regulation to the case at issue.
—

annul the agenda of the meeting of the European Parliament of Wednesday 30 November 2016 (document P8_0J (2016)11-30), in so far as it makes provision for plenary debates on the joint text on the draft general budget agreed by the Conciliation Committee; the agenda of the meeting of Thursday 1 December 2016 (document P8_0J (2016)12-01), in so far as it makes provision for a vote followed by explanations of votes on the joint text on the draft general budget; the European Parliament legislative resolution of 1 December 2016 on the joint text on the draft general budget (document TS-0475/2016, P8_TA-PROV(2016)0475 in its provisional version), and the act by which, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 314(9) TFEU, the President of the European Parliament concluded that the general budget had been definitively adopted;
Is Article 2(d) to be interpreted as meaning that in order for a religious community to be considered a controller other specific actions are required, such as giving instructions or written guidelines governing the collection of data, or is it sufficient that that religious community is regarded as having de facto control of the activities of its members?

It is necessary to answer Questions 3 and 4 only if, on the basis of the answers to Questions 1 and 2, the directive is applicable. It is necessary to answer Question 4 only if, on the basis of Question 3, the application of Article 2(d) of the Directive to the Religious Community cannot be excluded.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/19

Action brought on 3 March 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-110/17)

(2017/C 121/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and N. Gossement, Agents, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by retaining provisions under which, in respect of the estimation of income relating to unrented buildings or buildings rented either to natural persons who do not use them for professional purposes, or to legal persons who make such buildings available to natural persons for private purposes, the tax base is calculated on the basis of the cadastral value so far as property on national territory is concerned, and on the actual rental value so far as buildings located abroad are concerned, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and

— order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the EEA.

While noting the attempts made by Belgium to bring its failure to fulfil obligations to an end, the Commission takes the view that the existence of the failure to fulfil obligations on 26 March 2012, the date when the period of two months laid down in the reasoned opinion expired, has been proven.
4

Must the action be brought before the Portuguese courts, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) and (b), first indent, of Regulation No 1215/2012 (by virtue of Article 5(1) of the same regulation), because it relates to a framework commercial concession agreement which, as between the applicant and the defendant, can be broken down into various contracts of sale and all the goods sold were due to be delivered in Portugal, and were actually delivered there on 21 January 2014?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/25

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Limoges (France) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Banque Solfea SA v Jean-François Veitl

(Case C-63/17)

(2017/C 144/32)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance de Limoges

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banque Solfea SA

Defendant: Jean-François Veitl

Question referred

Where the annual percentage rate of credit is 6,75772 %, does the rule provided for in Directives 98/7/EC of 16 February 1998 (1) and 2008/48/EC of 23 April 2008, (2) according to which, in the French version, ‘Le résultat du calcul est exprimé avec une exactitude d’au moins une décimale. Si le chiffre de la décimale suivante est supérieur ou égal à 5, le chiffre de la première décimale sera augmenté de 1’ [translated in literal terms as ‘[t]he result of the calculation shall be expressed correct to at least one decimal place; [i]f the figure at the following decimal place is greater than or equal to 5, the figure at that particular decimal place shall be increased by one’] allow a stated APR of 6,75 % to be considered correct?

(1) Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1998 L 101, p. 17).

(2) Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/10

Action brought on 22 February 2017 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-93/17)

(2017/C 129/12)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and B. Stromsky)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to take measures to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 28 June 2012 in Case C-485/10 Commission v Greece, EU:C:2012:395, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that judgment and Article 260(1) TFEU;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment in the sum of EUR 34 974 for each day of delay in complying with the Court’s judgment of 28 June 2012 in Case C-485/10, in respect of the period from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the day on which the judgment of 28 June 2012 has been complied with;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum whose amount is derived from multiplying a daily sum of EUR 3 828 by the number of days that will have elapsed from the day of delivery of the judgment of 28 June 2012 until the day on which the infringement has ended or, if there has not been compliance, until the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 2 July 2008, the European Commission issued Decision 2009/610/EC on the measures C 16/04 (ex NN 29/04, CP 71/02 and CP 133/05) implemented by Greece in favour of Hellenic Shipyards. By that decision, the Commission found certain aid in favour of Hellenic Shipyards to be incompatible with the internal market and ordered its recovery, including interest calculated up to the point in time at which the aid was fully recovered.

On 8 October 2010, the Commission brought an action before the Court for infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU (Case C-485/10). The Court held on 28 June 2012 that, by failing to take, within the period laid down, all the measures necessary in order to implement the Commission decision and by failing to provide the information listed in Article 19 of that decision to the Commission within the period laid down, the Hellenic Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 to 19 of that decision.

Since the Hellenic Republic has not taken measures to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court on 28 June 2012, it has failed to fulfil its obligations under that judgment and Article 260(1) TFEU.
2.

Would a situation, such as that provided for in Article 96(2) of the Real Decreto Legislativo 5/2015 (Royal Legislative Decree 5/2015) of 30 October approving the consolidated text of the Ley del Estatuto Básico del Empleado Público (Law on the basic regulations relating to public servants), in which the disciplinary dismissal of a permanent worker, when that dismissal is held to be wrongful, that is to say unlawful, always requires the reinstatement of the worker, but when the worker is subject to an indefinite or temporary contract performing the same duties as a permanent worker permits that worker not to be reinstated in return for compensation, be discriminatory under Clause 4(1) of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/32

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Athens (Greece) lodged on 7 March 2017 — OL v PQ

(Case C-111/17 PPU)

(2017/C 144/42)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Monomeles Protodikeio Athens (Greece)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OL

Defendant: PQ

Question referred

What is the appropriate interpretation of the concept of ‘habitual residence’, within the meaning of Article 11(1) of Regulation (ΕC) No 2201/2003 (1) concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, in the case of an infant who fortuitously or due to force majeure has been born in a place other than that which her parents with joint parental responsibility for the child intended to be the place of her habitual residence, and was then unlawfully retained by one parent in the State where she was born, or removed to a third State. More specifically, is physical presence a necessary and self-evident prerequisite, in all circumstances, for establishing the habitual residence of a person, and in particular a new-born child?

(1) OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.
(b)

Does a contribution in kind by the contractor consisting in the performance for the beneficiary of other works which are in no way linked to the object of the financing and which release the contractor from the obligation to pay the contractual penalty (datio in solutum) constitute a receipt within the meaning of Rule No 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 448/2004 of 10 March 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the eligibility of expenditure of operations co-financed by the Structural Funds and withdrawing Regulation (EC) No 1145/2003?
1.

Must Directive 2005/29/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that national legislation such as that currently regulating Spanish mortgage enforcement — Article 695 et seq. in conjunction with Article 552(1) of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Code of Civil Procedure) — which does not provide for the review by the courts, of their own motion or even at the request of one of the parties, of unfair commercial practices, is contrary to Article 11 of that directive because that national legislation hinders or prevents review by the courts of contracts or acts which may contain unfair commercial practices?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 6 March 2017 — Administration des douanes et droits indirects, Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Hubert Clergeau, Jean-Luc Labrousse, Jean-Jacques Berthellemy, Alain Bouchet, Jean-Pierre Dubois, Marcel Géry, Jean-Paul Matrat, Jean-Pierre Paziot, Patrice Raillot

(Case C-115/17)

(2017/C 178/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Administration des douanes et droits indirects, Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

Defendants: Hubert Clergeau, Jean-Luc Labrousse, Jean-Jacques Berthellemy, Alain Bouchet, Jean-Pierre Dubois, Marcel Géry, Jean-Paul Matrat, Jean-Pierre Paziot, Patrice Raillot

Question referred

Is Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be interpreted as precluding a situation in which a person is convicted on the ground that he obtained export refunds, to which he was not entitled, by means of deceitful practices or the making of false declarations as to the nature of the goods in respect of which the refunds were requested, although, as a result of changes in the rules which occurred subsequent to the facts of the case, the goods that were in fact exported by that person have since become eligible for those refunds?
the Commission and the General Court, respectively, erred in law in respect of the calculation of the fine imposed on the Appellant. In particular, the General Court failed to consider the effects arising from its own incomplete selective review (with only a few of the contested contacts at issue being verified) and, consequently, failed to have regard to its unlimited jurisdiction with regard to the fine imposed. The General Court moreover erred in — and failed to sufficiently state reasons for — including the non-SIM revenues of the Appellant which led to the fine being excessive and thus disproportionate.

Further arguments relate to several distortions of evidence by the General Court, an erroneous allocation of the burden of proof regarding potentially unreliable evidence and errors of law relating to evidence used by the Commission against the Appellant which was not disclosed throughout the Commission proceedings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern (Germany) lodged on 10 March 2017 — Vossloh Laeis GmbH v Stadtwerke München GmbH

(Case C-124/17)

(2017/C 178/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Vergabekammer Südbayern

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vossloh Laeis GmbH

Defendant: Stadtwerke München GmbH

Questions referred

1. Is legislation of a Member State that makes successful voluntary remedial measures (Selbstreinigung) by an economic operator subject to the condition that it clarifies the facts and circumstances relating to the criminal offence or the misconduct and the damage caused by it in a comprehensive manner by actively cooperating not only with the investigating authorities, but also with the contracting authority, compatible with the provisions of Article 80 of Directive 2014/25/EU (1) in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 57(6) of Directive 2014/24/EU (2)?

2. If Question (a) is answered in the negative: Must the second subparagraph of Article 57(6) of Directive 2014/24/EU be interpreted, in that context, as meaning that the relevant economic operator is, for there to be successful voluntary remedial measures, in any event required to clarify the facts for the contracting authority to such an extent that the latter may assess whether the measures taken (technical, organisational and personnel measures and compensation for damage) are appropriate and sufficient?

3. For the optional grounds for exclusion laid down in Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU, the maximum period or time limit of exclusion is, pursuant to Article 57(7) of Directive 2014/24/EU, three years from the date of the relevant event. Is the fulfilment of the optional grounds for exclusion laid down in Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU to be understood as the relevant event or is the relevant date that on which the contracting entity has certain and reliable knowledge of the existence of the ground for exclusion?

4. Accordingly, for the fulfilment of the conditions for exclusion under Article [57](4)(d) of Directive 2014/24/EU through participation of an economic operator in a cartel, is the relevant event within the meaning of Article [57](7) of Directive 2014/24/EU the termination of participation in the cartel or the contracting entity’s acquisition of certain and reliable knowledge of the participation in the cartel?

(1) Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 243).

(2) Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/23

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 2 May 2017 — Érdem Deha Altiner, Isabel Hanna Ravn v Udlændingestyrelsen (Danish Immigration Service)

(Case C-230/17)

(2017/C 213/30)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Érdem Deha Altiner, Isabel Hanna Ravn

Defendant: Udlændingestyrelsen

Questions referred

Does Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, read in conjunction and by analogy with the Free Movement Directive (1) preclude a Member State from refusing to grant a derived right of residence to a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen who is a national of that Member State and who has returned to that Member State after having exercised his or her right of free movement, where the family member does not enter the Member State’s territory or submit an application for a right of residence as a natural extension of the Union citizen’s return?

(1) Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2017 — Angela Irmgard Diedrich and Others v Société Air France SA

(Case C-112/17)

(2017/C 213/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Angela Irmgard Diedrich, Thorsten Diedrich, Angel Wendy Mara Diedrich

Defendant: Société Air France SA

The case was removed from the register of the Court by order of the Court of 6 April 2017.