ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Does it constitute an infringement of EU law (second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union or other applicable provisions) if the court which submitted the request for a preliminary ruling allows the proceedings to continue before it after delivery of the preliminary ruling and delivers a decision on the merits of the case without disqualifying itself, a ground for such disqualification being that the court had expressed a preliminary view on the merits of the case in the request for a preliminary ruling (in that it considered certain facts to have been established and a certain legal provision to be applicable to those facts)? The question is referred on the assumption that all procedural provisions protecting the parties’ rights to adduce evidence and to make submissions were complied with in the determination of the facts and applicable law for the purposes of submitting the request for a preliminary ruling.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/6

Appeal brought on 19 December 2014 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 16 October 2014 in joined Cases T-208/11 and T-508/11: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) v Council of the European Union

(Case C-599/14 P)

(2015/C 089/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, E. Finnegan, and G. Etienne, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested judgment;

— give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal and to dismiss the Applications; and

— order the Applicant in Joined Cases T-208/11 and T-508/11 to pay the costs of the Council arising from that case and from the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested judgment the General Court annulled the listing of LTTE purely for reasons related to the procedure used for their adoption. The Council submits that the General Court erred on the following points:

First plea: The General Court wrongly held that the Council must demonstrate in the statement of reasons that it has verified that the activity of the listing authority in the third state is carried out with sufficient safeguards. Although the Council accepts that the activity of the competent authority in a third state must be framed within legislation and practice that respects the fundamental rights of those affected by it, it submits that the General Court errs in law by requiring this information to be included in the statement of reasons.

Second plea: The General Court erred in law in its assessment of the Council’s use of information in the public domain. Moreover, the General Court was wrong to dismiss the use by the Council of open source material. The General Court errs further in reasoning that the Council should have asked a competent authority to investigate the press items referred to in the statement of reasons. Finally, the General Court errs in concluding that its refusal to uphold the Council’s reliance on open source material should result in the annulment of the contested decision.

Third plea: the General Court erred by not concluding that the listing could stand on the basis of the 2001 UK Proscription Order. The General Court’s interpretation, apart from being not warranted in law, has the consequence that an entity could obstruct its listing under CP931 by refusing to contest its listing or proscription in the Member State from where the decision under Article 1(4) of CP931 emanates. In addition, the General Court’s reasoning is not compatible with the judgment in Kadi II.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/26

Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-595/14)

(2015/C 138/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/688/EU of 25 September 2014 on subjecting 4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)phenethylamine (25I-NBOMe), 3,4-dichloro-N-[[1-dimethylamino)cyclohexyl]methyl]benzamide (AH-7921), 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and 2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone (methoxetamine) to control measures (1);

— maintain the effects of Implementing Decision 2014/688/EU until such time as it is replaced with a new act adopted in the prescribed manner;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the European Parliament relies on two pleas in law.

The first plea concerns the Council’s use of a legal basis repealed by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and, alternatively, a secondary legal basis which, in itself, is unlawful in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice.

The second plea concerns the Council’s use of a decision-making procedure for the adoption of Decision 2014/688/EU which is not legally correct. The Parliament was not involved in the procedure which led to adoption of the contested decision. The Parliament infers from this, consequently, infringement of the Treaties and of an essential procedural requirement.

Should the Court annul the contested decision, Parliament considers it would be desirable that the Court exercise its discretion to maintain the effects of the contested decision, in accordance with Article 264(2) TFEU, until such time as it is replaced with a new act adopted in the prescribed manner.

(1) OJ 2014 L 287, p. 22.
2.

Must Council Directive 87/102/EEC (2) of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit, as amended and supplemented by Directive 98/7/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998, be interpreted as meaning that the APR includes also a payment for cash acceptance of repayment instalments of the credit, or part of it, if the payment substantially exceeds the unavoidable costs of that ancillary service, and must Article 14 of that directive be interpreted as meaning that it is a circumvention of the concept of APR if the payment for an ancillary service substantially exceeds the costs of the ancillary service and the payment is not included in the APR?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 81/10

Appeal brought on 19 January 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 November 2014 in Case T-219/10 Autogrill España v Commission

(Case C-20/15 P)

(2015/C 081/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Autogrill España, S.A.

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and

— reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting Article 107(1) TFEU and, in particular, the concept of selectivity of State aid contained in that article.

That single ground of appeal consists of two parts, which derive from the aforementioned error of law:

— in the first place, the General Court erred by requiring, in order to demonstrate that a measure is selective, the identification of a category of undertakings with specific and inherent characteristics (identifiable ex ante); and
1.

Must Article 53(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) 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, both in isolation and in conjunction with the scope of the principles laid down by European law concerning equality and transparency in the field of public procurement, be interpreted as meaning that, if the contract is awarded to the tenderer who submits the most economically advantageous tender from the point of view of the contracting authority, the contracting authority is always required to establish in advance, and indicate in the contract notice or contract documents, the method of assessment or the weighting rules, irrespective of their scope, predictability or commonness, in the light of which the tenders will be assessed in accordance with the award criteria or subcriteria,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2015 — Alexandra Stück v Swiss International Air Lines AG

(Case C-3/15)

(2015/C 118/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alexandra Stück

Defendant: Swiss International Air Lines AG

Question referred

Is the Agreement on air transport between the Swiss Confederation and the European Community (1) of 21 June 1999, as amended by Decision No 2/2010 of the Community/Switzerland Air Transport Committee (2) of 26 November 2010, to be interpreted as meaning that 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 (3) [‘the Air Passenger Rights Regulation’] is applicable, in accordance with Article 3(1)(b), also to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport in Switzerland with a Swiss air carrier?

(1) OJ 2002 L 114, p. 73.

(2) Decision No 2/2010 of the Joint Community/Switzerland Air Transport Committee set up under the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport of 26 November 2010 replacing the Annex to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport, OJ 2010 L 347, p. 54.

(3) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
1)

Must a shipment of waste be considered to be effected ‘in a way which is not specified materially in the document set out in Annex VII’, within the meaning of Article 2(35)(g)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (1), when the person who arranges the shipment completes the boxes corresponding to the importer/consignee, the recovery facility and the countries/States concerned — in entries 2, 7 and 11 respectively of the document set out in Annex VII to that regulation — in a manner whereby those entries conflict with one another, even though the information relating to those entries is clearly apparent from the international consignment note and other documents available?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 146/30

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 4 March 2015 — Kødbranchens Fællesråd acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S and Others v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Fødevarestyrelsen

(Case C-112/15)

(2015/C 146/36)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kødbranchens Fællesråd acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S, Danish Crown A.m.b.A. Oksekødsdivisionen, Hadsund Kreaturslagteri A/S, Hjalmar Nielsens Eksportslageri A/S, Kjellerup Eksportslagteri A/S, Mogens Nielsen Kreaturslagteri A/S, Vejle Eksportsla A/S

Defendants : 1. Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri 2. Fødevarestyrelsen

Question referred

Must Article 27(4)(a) of, read in conjunction with points 1 and 2 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, be interpreted as meaning that the Member States, in setting the fee charged to food establishments, are precluded from including expenditure for the salaries and training of the public-sector staff who are hired for the purpose of completing training which fulfils the requirements for ‘official auxiliary’: see Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption, but who, prior to being accepted into the training or in the course of their training do not conduct meat inspections?

(1) OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2004 L 139, p. 206.
If the interpretation in the second indent of Question 3 is correct:

Must Article 10(2)(h) of Directive 2008/48 be interpreted as meaning that the information required by that provision (specifically the ‘frequency of payments’) may also be contained in a separate document to which the agreement complying with the requirement of being on paper (within the meaning of Article 10(1) of the directive) refers, but which does not itself have to fulfil that requirement (that is, in principle it does not have to be signed by the parties to the contract; it may, for example, be ‘general terms of business’, ‘terms of credit’, ‘scale of charges’, ‘schedule of instalments’ drawn up by the creditor)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 146/29

Action brought on 3 March 2015 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-104/15)

(2015/C 146/35)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae, D. Loma-Osorio Lerena, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Romania

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by not adopting the necessary measures to prevent pollution from dust particles coming from the Bosneag pond extension belonging to the copper and zinc mining operations of Moldomin at Moldova Noua, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 and Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (1);

— Order Romania to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action brought by the European Commission against Romania concerns the failure by the Romanian authorities to adopt the measures necessary to prevent pollution from dust particles coming from one of the ponds of a copper mining operation.

The Commission submits that, by not adopting the measures necessary to prevent the spread of dust particles from the surface of the Bosneag pond extension, which damage human health and the environment, Romania has not complied with Article 4 and Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/21/EC. The Commission considers that Romania must ensure the protection of human health and the environment from any negative effect whatsoever — even though it enjoys a certain degree of flexibility as to the specific measures that it must adopt — if the requirements defined in Article 4 of Directive 2006/21/EC are to be respected. The Commission also considers that Article 13(2) of the directive imposes a specific obligation on the competent authority, that is to say, that authority must ensure that the operator takes adequate measures to prevent or reduce the dust.

The Commission relies in these proceedings on the report of the competent Romanian authority for environmental protection, on information from the press and on the responses provided by Romania in the pre-litigation proceedings, all of which go to show that, in the area of Moldova Noua, there is significant pollution from dust coming from the Bosneag pond extension which, particularly at times when the wind is stronger, has a harmful effect on the health of the local inhabitants and the environment.

Furthermore, the Commission argues that Romania cannot rely on purely internal situations, such as the privatisation of Moldomin and the future environmental obligations of a buyer, in order to justify non-fulfilment of the obligations under the directive.

(1) OJ L 102, p. 15.
2.

Can the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 be extended to a situation where a product which does not fulfil the conditions of Article 2(1)(a) of the regulation appears to be a cosmetic product according to the predominant purpose for a reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect average consumer, for example owing to the fact that wording such as ‘Cosmetic eye accessories are governed by the EU Cosmetics Directive’ or ‘Colour eye accessories are governed by the EU Cosmetics Directive’ is used on the packaging?
1.

Must Article 34(2) 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 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the possibility of commencing proceedings to challenge a judgment laid down therein covers both the situation in which such a challenge can be brought within the time-limit laid down in national law and the situation in which that time-limit has already passed but it is possible to submit an application for relief from the effects of its passing and then — following the grant of such relief — actually to commence such proceedings?
1.

Is the question as to whether there is a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 (1) and/or within the meaning of Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 (2) always to be determined in accordance with the same criteria, namely that: — a user acts, in full knowledge of the consequences of its action, to provide access to the protected work to third parties which the latter would not have without that user’s intervention;, — the term ‘public’ refers to an indeterminate number of potential recipients of the service and, in addition, must consist of a fairly large number of persons, in which connection the indeterminate nature is established when ‘persons in general’ — and therefore not persons belonging to a private group — are concerned, and ‘a fairly large number of persons’ means that a certain de minimis threshold must be exceeded and that groups of persons concerned which are too small or insignificant therefore do not satisfy the criterion; in this connection not only is it relevant to know how many persons have access to the same work at the same time but it is also relevant to know how many of them have access to it in succession; — the public to which the work is communicated is a new public, that is to say, a public which the author of the work did not contemplate when he authorised its use by communication to the public, unless the subsequent communication uses a specific technical means which differs from that of the original communication; and — it is not irrelevant that the act of exploitation in question serves a profit-making purpose and also that the public is receptive to that communication and is not merely ‘reached’ by chance, although this is not an essential condition for the existence of a communication to the public?
—

Declare that, by applying, for the purpose of determining the taxable amount of second-hand vehicles brought into Portuguese territory from another Member State, a system for the calculation of the depreciation of vehicles which does not take account of the actual value of the vehicle and, in particular, does not take account of the depreciation in the vehicle’s value during its first year of use, or any other depreciation in the case of vehicles more than five years old, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
1)

Must heading 2304 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) be interpreted as meaning that that tariff heading also covers a soya protein concentrate obtained following the removal of residual fats, carbohydrates (or food fibres) and harmful substances from solid residues (so-called soya meal) resulting from the extraction of oil from soya beans, which, by means of that removal, has been made suitable for use as an ingredient in compound feeds for very young calves?
2)

If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, may the retention nevertheless be permitted where: a) access by the national authorities to the retained data is determined as [described below under paragraphs 7-24], and b) security requirements are regulated as [described below under paragraphs 26-31], and c) all relevant data are to be retained for six months, calculated as from the day the communication is ended, and subsequently deleted as [described below under paragraphs 25]?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 23 February 2015 — TUIfly GmbH v Wieland Volkert, Sonja Volkert, Linda Volkert

(Case C-83/15)

(2015/C 213/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant and defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Respondents and applicants: Wieland Volkert, Sonja Volkert, Linda Volkert

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 23 April 2015.
3.

Must it be assumed that there is a prorogation of jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 12(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 where the respondent’s representative has not challenged the jurisdiction of the court but where that representative has not been authorised by the respondent but rather appointed by the court owing to the difficulty in notifying the respondent in order that he might participate in the proceedings in person or through a representative instructed by him?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 228/6

Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 29 April 2015 — Invamed Group Ltd, Invacare UK Ltd, Days Healthcare Ltd, Electric Mobility Euro Ltd, Medicare Technology Ltd, Sunrise Medical Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

(Case C-198/15)

(2015/C 228/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Invamed Group Ltd, Invacare UK Ltd, Days Healthcare Ltd, Electric Mobility Euro Ltd, Medicare Technology Ltd, Sunrise Medical Ltd

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Questions referred

The Questions referred relate to Annex I of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006, and to heading 8713 therein.

1. Do the words ‘for disabled persons’ mean ‘only’ for disabled persons?

2. What is the meaning of the words ‘disabled persons’; in particular: a) is their meaning confined to persons who have a disability in addition to a limitation on their ability to walk or to walk easily; or does it include persons whose only limitation is on their ability to walk or to walk easily? b) does ‘disabled’ connote more than a marginal limitation on some ability? c) is a temporary limitation such as results from a broken leg capable of being a disability?

3. Does the CNEN of 4 January 2005 (2005/C1/03) (2), in excluding scooters fitted with separate steering columns, alter the meaning of the heading 8713?

4. Does the possibility of use of a vehicle by a person without a disability affect the tariff classification if it can be said that the vehicle has special features which alleviate the effects of a disability?

5. If suitability for use by non-disabled persons is a relevant consideration, to what extent should the disadvantages of such use also be a relevant consideration in determining such suitability?

(1) OJ L 301, p. 1.

(2) Explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union OJ C 137, p. 1.