ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

In connection with a trial to enforce claims under a Community design, can the court of a Member State whose jurisdiction with respect to a defendant is based solely on Article 79(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (1) in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, (2) on the basis that this defendant, which is domiciled in another Member State, supplied the defendant domiciled in the pertinent Member State with goods that may infringe intellectual property rights, adopt measures against the first mentioned defendant that are applicable throughout the EU and extend beyond the supply relationships on which jurisdiction is based?
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does Article 8(6) and (8) of Regulation No 561/2006, read in conjunction with Article 19 of the same regulation, then breach the principle of legality in criminal proceedings as expressed in Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) in so far as the abovementioned provisions of Regulation No 561/2006 do not expressly provide for the prohibition on spending the regular weekly rest periods referred to in Article 8(6) of the same regulation inside the vehicle?
2.

In so far as it guarantees consumers the possibility of submitting complaints against traders to appropriate entities offering alternative dispute resolution procedures, must Article 1 … of Directive 2013/11 be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national rule which requires the use of mediation in one of the disputes referred to in Article 2(1) of Directive 2013/11 as a precondition for the bringing of legal proceedings by the consumer, and, in any event, as precluding a national rule that requires a consumer taking part in mediation relating to one of the abovementioned disputes to be assisted by a lawyer and to bear the related costs, and allows a party not to participate in mediation only on valid grounds?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 191/20

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 29 March 2016 — Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik v SOS-Lapsikylä ry

(Case C-175/16)

(2016/C 191/24)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik

Respondent: SOS-Lapsikylä ry

Question referred

Must Article 17(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time be interpreted as including within its scope an activity, as described above, performed in a children’s home in which the worker acts as the representative of foster parents of children in care on the parents’ days off, lives during this period with the children in a family-like setting and during this time independently attends equally to the children’s and family’s needs, as parents generally do?

(1) OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.
1.

May Article 13(3)of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, in conjunction with the right to social security benefits and social services enshrined in Article 34(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings, be interpreted without taking into account the clarifications in Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and without any possibility of consequently applying the procedure mentioned in Article 16 of the abovementioned regulation, in such a way that the shortness of the working time or the low level of remuneration of employees has no effect on the choice of the national law applicable when a person is both employed and self-employed, in other words: the abovementioned Article 14 of the implementing Regulation does not apply to the interpretation of Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation?
2.

Is Article 1 of Directive 2004/18 is to be interpreted as meaning that associations of that description, and in particular those which receive compulsory contributions, satisfy the criterion for classification as a body governed by public law relating to the exercise by the public authorities of management supervision when that economic and financial supervision of the State is external supervision of the economic activity and financial management of the undertakings and bodies that are subject to it and its purpose is to analyse the risks and assess the performance of those undertakings and bodies while protecting the financial interests of the State and when, in order to carry out his duties, the agent entrusted with the task of supervision enjoys full powers of documentary and on-site investigation, the undertaking or body under supervision is required to communicate to that agent all the information he may require in order to fulfil his duties, including information concerning subsidiaries within its scope of consolidation, the agent may, where appropriate, request any additional information, may attend, in an advisory capacity, meetings of the board of directors or supervisory board or other equivalent decision-making body and of any committees and commissions created by them, may attend meetings of the committees, commissions and all consultative bodies within the undertaking or body as well as annual general meetings and must receive, in the same manner as the members thereof, invitations to such meetings, agendas and all other documents that are to be sent out before each meeting?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 191/20

Appeal brought on 23 March 2016 by Proforec Srl against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2016 in Case T-120/15 Proforec v Commission

(Case C-176/16 P)

(2016/C 191/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Proforec Srl (represented by: G. Durazzo, M. Mencoboni, G. Pescatore, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Set aside the order of inadmissibility No 704600 of 21 January 2016 in Case T-120/15 on the grounds set out, which are to be taken to be referred to and reproduced in full.

— Declare the action admissible and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling, following the adoption of any measures it may think fit to take.

— Order the Commission to pay the costs in the present proceedings. If the present appeal should be dismissed (quod non), the appellant requests that from now on the parties should bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on the following three grounds on the plea of inadmissibility:

FIRST GROUND: Error in law and in fact regarding the lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings. The General Court, in paragraphs 28 to 31 of the order, erroneously ruled that the applicant had no legal interest in applying for annulment of the Regulation, identifying by means of illogical reasoning the distributors of third party brands as the sole beneficiaries of the annulment of the contested Regulation exclusively, and not Proforec directly.

SECOND GROUND: Failure by the General Court to apply Article 263(4) of TFEU to the consideration of the applicant’s legal interest in bringing proceedings, which was denied.

THIRD GROUND: In paragraphs 32 to 35 of the order of inadmissibility, the General Court did not give an adequate statement of reasons for the applicant’s lack of legal interest, in that it misrepresented the facts concerning the lack of risk of legal proceedings being brought against Proforec, failing to consider it as an existing risk on the date the proceedings were started, and not taking any position on the obvious infringement of the regulation in relation to the omission of a transitional period for the disposal of stocks and packaging.
2.

Is Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that a legal person which alleges that its rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information concerning it on the internet and by the failure to remove comments relating to that information can, in respect of the entire harm that it has sustained, bring proceedings for rectification of the information, for an injunction for removal of the comments and for damages for the pecuniary loss caused by publication of the incorrect information on the internet before the courts of the State in which that legal person has its centre of interests?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 7 March 2016 — Georgsmarienhütte GmbH and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-135/16)

(2016/C 211/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH

Defendants: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Question referred

Does the European Commission Decision of 25 November 2014 (Commission Decision of 25.11.2014 on the aid scheme SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users, C(2014)8786 final) (1) breach the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in so far as the Commission qualifies the limitation of the EEG-surcharge as aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU?

(1) OJ 2015 L 250, p. 122.
Appeal brought on 14 April 2016 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2016 in Case T-287/11 Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-208/16 P)

(2016/C 211/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze und R. Kanitz)

Other parties to the proceedings: Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— quash the General Court’s judgment of 4 February 2016 in Case T-287/11 in so far as it dismissed the action as being unfounded;

— annul Commission Decision of 26 January 2011, K(2011)275 final, on State aid C 7/10 — Law on corporation tax (KStG) Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel), according to Article 61(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice;

— order the Commission to bear the costs incurred before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant raises one ground of appeal in support of its appeal.

There is an infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU. The General Court disregarded that Paragraph 8c(1a) of the Law on corporation tax (KStG), known as ‘the restructuring clause’, is not selective:

— the ‘restructuring clause’ is not prima facie selective, as there is no exception to the relevant reference system and because it is a general measure, which may benefit all undertakings in the territory of the Member State;
2.

Must the plainness and intelligibility of a contractual term, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, be understood to mean that that term must provide not only for the grounds of its incorporation in the contract and the term’s method of operation, or must it also provide for all the possible consequences of the term as a result of which the price paid by the consumer may vary, for example, foreign exchange risk, and in the light of Directive 93/13/EEC may it be considered that the bank’s obligation to inform the customer at the time of granting the credit relates solely to the conditions of credit, namely, the interest, commissions, and guarantees required of the borrower, since such an obligation may not include the possible overvaluation or undervaluation of a foreign currency?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/2

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Celle (Germany) lodged on 22 March 2016 — Tui Deutschland GmbH v Stefan Düren

(Case C-166/16)

(2016/C 232/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Celle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tui Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Stefan Düren

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 21 April 2016.
1.

Are the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (1) that confer the right to an effective remedy against a transfer decision, in particular Article 27(1), to be interpreted as meaning that an applicant for asylum is entitled to claim that responsibility has been transferred to the requesting Member State on the ground that the six month transfer period has expired (Article 29(2) in conjunction with Article 29(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 in light of the 19th recital)? If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
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 7 April 2016 — Comune di Corridonia v Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 –Ambiente

(Case C-196/16)

(2016/C 251/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comune di Corridonia

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.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it compatible with the principles set out above that a provision — such as Article 26(2) of Presidential Decree No 633/1972, in the version in force before the amendments introduced by Article 1(126) and (127) of Law No 208 of 28 December 2015 — makes the right to recover the tax contingent on proof that insolvency procedures have previously been unsuccessfully conducted, that is to say, in accordance with case-law and the practice of the tax authority of the EU Member State, following definitive failure to distribute the assets, or, failing that, a final decision closing the insolvency procedure, even where such procedures may reasonably be deemed to be uneconomic because of the amount of the claim, the prospects of recovery and the costs of the insolvency procedures and given that, in any event, those conditions could apply years after the date of opening of the insolvency?
4.

Should the answer to the second question be in the negative: Is EU law, in particular Article 2 of Directive 2006/126/EC or Articles 18, 21, 45, 49 and 56 TFEU, to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State — in which an applicant for a driving licence is, as a general rule, issued a definitive driving licence directly after passing the practical driving test — under which prosecution as a minor offence is threatened for driving a vehicle if the driver, who has been licensed to drive in another Member State in accordance with the requirements of Directive 2006/126/EC, drives without a definitive driving licence as evidence of his authorisation to drive because such a licence has not yet been issued to him, yet due to the particularities of the procedure for the issuing of the definitive driving licence in that Member State, over which the driver has no control, the driver is in possession of an official document certifying that the necessary requirements for acquiring authorisation to drive have been fulfilled?
2.

Is Article 5(3) of the regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the operating air carrier can rely also on extraordinary circumstances which did not occur on the flight booked by the passenger but on an immediately preceding flight with the aircraft scheduled for the booked flight as part of a flight diagram?
4.

Should the Court answer question 2 in the affirmative and the answer to question 3 is that it is not for the national courts to define what is included in the concept ‘beneficial owner’, is the concept then to be interpreted as meaning that in a company resident in a Member State which, in circumstances such as those of the present case, receives dividends from a subsidiary in another Member State, is the ‘beneficial owner’ of those dividends as that concept is to be interpreted under EU law? (a) Is the concept ‘beneficial owner’ to be interpreted in accordance with the corresponding concept in Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/49/EC (‘the Interest & Royalties Directive’), read in conjunction with Article 1(4) thereof? (b) Should the concept be interpreted solely in the light of the commentary on Article 10 of the OECD 1977 Model Tax Convention (paragraph 12), or can subsequent commentaries be incorporated into the interpretation, including the additions made in 2003 regarding ‘conduit companies’, and the additions made in 2014 regarding ‘contractual or legal obligations’? (c) What significance does it have for the assessment of the issue whether the dividends recipient must be deemed to be a ‘beneficial owner’ if the dividends recipient has had a contractual or legal obligation to pass the interest to another person? (d) What significance does it have for the assessment of the issue whether the dividends recipient must be deemed to be a ‘beneficial owner’ that 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?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/22

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lille (Regional Court, Lille) (France) lodged on 6 June 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Uber France SAS

(Case C-320/16)

(2016/C 296/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Lille

Party to the main proceedings

Uber France SAS

Question referred

Does Article L.3124-13 of the Code des transports, inserted by Law No 2014-1104 of 1 October 2014 on taxis and private hire vehicles, constitute a new technical regulation that is not implicit and that relates to one or more information society services, within the meaning of Directive 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998 (1), such that, pursuant to Article 8 of that directive, it had to be notified in advance to the European Commission, or does it fall within the scope of Directive 2006/123/EC (2) of 12 December 2006 on services, Article 2(d) of which excludes transport?

In the event that that question is answered in the affirmative, does a failure to satisfy the notification requirement laid down in Article 8 of the directive mean that Article L.3124-13 of the Code des transports is unenforceable against individuals?

(1) Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).

(2) Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36)
4.

An error of law in the interpretation of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and with regard to the principle of proportionality in relation to the application of a flat-rate correction and the rejection of the correction proposed by the Kingdom of Spain. 4.1 An error of law in the interpretation of Article 31(2) because that provision requires that the financial damage caused is taken into account as an essential factor. Since that damage had been evaluated precisely by the Kingdom of Spain, flat-rate correction, which is a means available only where it was impossible to have recourse to a more appropriate method, should not have been used. 4.2 And an error of law in respect of the review of the principle of proportionality because the method used by the Commission produced a flat-rate correction some 530 % higher than the calculation put forward by the Kingdom of Spain. The Kingdom of Spain’s calculation took into account actual data of the penalties imposed in subsequent years in which the cross-compliance deficiencies had been corrected. The amount resulting from the flat-rate correction is absolutely disproportionate and the paying agencies must not meet the costs of corrections which are overvalued.
2.

However, the Hellenic Republic did not recover the aid at issue within four months, as it was required to do. In addition, the Hellenic Republic continues to be in breach of its obligation to take the required measures to implement the decision. By Decree-Law of 30 December 2015 the Greek authorities extended by six months the public auction procedure for the sale of assets of United Textiles with a view to investigating the possible resumption of its operations, without the aid incompatible with the internal market having been recovered. In any event, the Hellenic Republic has failed adequately to inform the European Commission of the relevant measures for the implementation of the decision.
1.

Must Directive 2005/29/EC (1) on unfair commercial practices be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Article 14 of Law 7/1996 of 15 January 1996 regulating retail commerce (Ley 7/1996, de 15 de enero, de Ordenación del Comercio Minorista), which is stricter than the directive in question in that it contains an initial prohibition, which also covers wholesalers, on selling at a loss, treating such a practice as an infringement of administrative law and therefore imposing a penalty in respect of it, account being taken of the fact that, in addition to regulating the market, the Spanish legislation is intended to protect the interests of consumers?