ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

What guidelines should be used to decide whether the application by a dominant undertaking of a rebate scheme with a standardised volume threshold having the characteristics referred to in points 10 and 11 of the order for reference constitutes an abuse of a dominant position contrary to Article 82 of the EC Treaty? In its answer the Court is requested to clarify what relevance it has to the assessment whether the rebate scheme’s thresholds are set in such a way that the rebate scheme applies to the majority of customers on the market. In its answer the Court is further requested to clarify what relevance, if any, the dominant undertaking’s prices and costs have to the evaluation pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty of such a rebate scheme (relevance of a ‘competitor as efficient’ test). At the same time the Court is requested to clarify what relevance the characteristics of the market have in this connection, including whether the characteristics of the market can justify the foreclosure effect being demonstrated by examinations and analyses other than a ‘competitor as efficient’ test (see, in that regard, paragraph 24 of the Commission’s communication on the application of Article 82).
1.

Are the Italian rules in force laid down in Article 3(1) and (4) of Decree-Law No 95 of 6 July 2012, as amended in part by converting Law No 135 of 7 August 2012, according to which ‘given the exceptional nature of the economic situation and bearing in mind the priority need to achieve the objectives of controlling public expenditure, as from the date on which this measure enters into force, for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014, the updating relating to the variation in the indices of the National Statistics Institute (ISTAT), as provided for under the law in force, shall not apply to the rent payable by the administrations included in the consolidated balance sheet of the public authorities, as determined by ISTAT in accordance with Article 1(3) of Law No 196 of 31 December 2009, or by the independent regulatory authorities, including the Commissione nazionale per le società e la borsa (National Commission for Companies and the Stock Exchange — Consob) for the use as lessee of premises for institutional purposes’, and, in addition, at paragraph 4, that ‘for the purposes of controlling public expenditure, [Or. 6] in the case of leases for the use of premises for institutional purposes concluded by the central authorities, as determined by ISTAT in accordance with Article 1(3) of Law No 196 of 31 December 2009, and by the independent regulatory authorities, including the Commissione nazionale per le società e la borsa (Consob), the rental payments shall be reduced by 15% of the current rent as from 1 January 2015’, and, ‘as from the date of entry into force of the law converting this decree, the reduction referred to in the previous sentence shall in any event apply to leases which expired or were renewed after that date’, incompatible with the provisions of Article 106(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in that they are capable of guaranteeing entities operating in a competitive market an unjustified, discriminatory advantage compared with other entities that operate in the same field but do not benefit from those rules?’
1.

Must the provisions of Section 5 of Chapter II (Articles 18-21) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) be interpreted as precluding the application by the courts of Article 5(1)(a) or of Article 5(3) of that Regulation in a case such as that at issue here, where the defendant is held liable by the company not only in his capacity as director of that company on the basis of the improper performance of his duties or on the basis of unlawful conduct, but quite apart from that capacity, is also held liable by that company on the basis of intent or deliberate recklessness in the execution of the contract of employment entered into between him and the company?
3.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is it sufficient, in the assessment as to whether a potentially discriminatory withholding tax levied at source is effectively neutralised on the basis of a convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded by the source State, that (i) the double taxation convention concerned contains a provision in that regard, and that, although that option is not unconditional, (ii) in the case in question it has the result that the Netherlands tax burden for a non-resident is not heavier than that for a resident? In the case of inadequate compensation in the year in which the dividends are received, is it relevant, in the assessment of that neutralisation, that there is the possibility of carrying forward the deficit and of utilising the set-off in subsequent years?
—

First, the Appellant submits that the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons adequately pursuant to Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice when it considered that the Contested Provisions are not severable from the remainder of the Decision.
2.

Result in the breach of the ‘right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence’ enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in Article 4(1) of Protocol No 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/24

Action brought on 21 February 2014 — European Commission v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-88/14)

2014/C 135/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, B. Martenczuk, G. Wils, Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 1, point 1, as well as point 4 to the extent that it introduces a new Article 4b, of Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (1);

— state that the effects of the annulled provisions and any implementing measure derived therefrom are definitive pending their replacement within a reasonable time-frame by acts adopted in accordance with the Treaty as interpreted by the judgment of the Court;

— order the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In subsidiary order, in the event that the Court were to consider the above-mentioned provisions to be inseparable from the rest of the challenged Regulation, the Commission respectfully requests the Court to:

— annul Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement in its entirety;

— state that the effects of the annulled regulation and any implementing measure derived therefrom are definitive pending their replacement within a reasonable time-frame by acts adopted in accordance with the Treaty as interpreted by the judgment of the Court;

— order the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission seeks the annulment of Article 1, point 1, as well as point 4 to the extent that it introduces a new Article 4b, of Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement. Alternatively, in the event that the Court were to consider the above-mentioned provisions to be inseparable from the rest of the challenged Regulation, the Commission seeks the annulment of the entire regulation.

The Commission is of the view that the provisions referred to are incompatible with Articles 290 and 291 TFEU to the extent that they foresee the use of delegated acts, since the delegated acts in question do not supplement or amend the legislative act, but implement it.

(1) OJ L 347, p 74
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 February 2014 — Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln v Nazifa Alimanovic and Others

(Case C-67/14)

2014/C 142/19

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundessozialgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln

Respondents: Nazifa Alimanovic, Sonita Alimanovic, Valentina Alimanovic, Valentino Alimanovic

Questions referred

1. Does the principle of equal treatment under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) — with the exception of the clause in Article 70(4) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 excluding the provision of benefits outside the Member State of residence — also apply to the special non-contributory cash benefits referred to in Article 70(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004?

2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative: may the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 be limited by provisions of national legislation implementing Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (2) which do not under any circumstances allow access to those benefits in the case where the right of residence of the European Union citizen from another Member State arises solely out of the search for employment, and, if so, to what extent may that principle be so limited?

3. Does Article 45(2) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 18 TFEU, preclude a national provision which does not under any circumstances allow the grant of a social benefit which is intended to ensure subsistence and to facilitate access to the labour market to European Union citizens who can invoke the exercise of their right of free movement as job-seekers in the case where those citizens enjoy a right of residence arising solely out of the search for employment, irrespective of their link with the host Member State?

(1) 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).

(2) 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 142/23

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nîmes (France) lodged on 28 February 2014 — Jean-Claude Van Hove v CNP Assurances SA

(Case C-96/14)

2014/C 142/31

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Nîmes

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jean-Claude Van Hove

Defendant: CNP Assurances SA

Question referred

Must Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a term relating to the definition of the main subject matter of a contract which appears in that provision covers a term of an insurance contract intended to ensure that loan repayments payable to the lender will be covered in the event of the borrower’s total incapacity for work if that term prevents the insured person from receiving that cover in the event that he is declared capable of carrying on unpaid employment?

(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/11

Action brought on 10 January 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Malta

(Case C-12/14)

2014/C 159/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici, D. Martin, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by reducing Maltese old-age pensions by the amount of a United Kingdom civil servant pension under, as the case may be, The Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, The National Health Service Pension Scheme or The Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975 in respect of The Royal Air Force, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 46b of Regulation (EEC) no 1408/71 (1) of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Communities, as amended and consolidated by Regulation 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (2) and Article 54 of Regulation (EC) no 883/2004 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems;

— order the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulations 1408/71 and 883/2004 by deducting civil service pensions acquired under the legislation of another Member State from Maltese statutory old-age pension. The Commission is of the opinion that the United Kingdom civil service pension schemes are based on legislation and therefore fall within the scope of the said Regulations. The latter prohibit reducing a Maltese old-age pension by the amount of a United Kingdom public service pension. No social security convention concerning United Kingdom public service pensions has been concluded between the United Kingdom and Malta and no Annex to Regulation 1408/71 and 883/2004 contains an entry in respect of Malta, so that the conditions laid down by those Regulations to allow the continued applications of social security conventions are not fulfilled.

As the United Kingdom public service pension schemes do fall within the scope of these Regulations, Articles 46b (1) of Regulation 1408/71 and 54 (1) of Regulation 883/2004 forbid the application of a rule of national law on the prevention of overlapping of benefits such as Section 56 of the Maltese Social Security Act.

(1) OJ L 149, p. 2

(2) OJ L 28, p. 1

(3) OJ L 166, p. 1
(2)

In circumstances where an employee claims a protective award against a private employer, can the Member State rely on or plead the fact that the Directive does not give rise to directly effective rights against the employer in circumstances where: (i) The private employer would, but for the failure by the Member State properly to implement the Directive, have been liable to pay a protective award to the employee, because of the failure of that employer to consult in accordance with the Directive; and (ii) That employer being insolvent, in the event that a protective award is made against the private employer and is not satisfied by that employer, and an application is made to the Member State, that Member State would itself be liable to pay any such protective award to the employee under domestic legislation that implements Directive 2008/94/EC of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (2), subject to any limitation of liability imposed on the Member State's guarantee institution pursuant to Article 4 of that Directive?
1.

Is Article 15(3) and (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying thirdcountry nationals, in conjunction with Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the right to a judicial review and effective [legal protection], to be interpreted as meaning that: a) where an administrative authority is obliged under the national law of a Member State to conduct a monthly review of detention without there being an express obligation to take administrative action and where it has to submit to the court ex officio a list of third-country nationals detained beyond the statutorily prescribed maximum length of the initial detention due to obstacles to removal, the administrative authority is obliged, on the expiry of the period laid down in the individual decision to detain for the first time, to either pronounce an express detention review measure having regard to the grounds for an extension of detention provided for under European (‘EU’) law or to release the person in question? b) where the national law of the Member State provides for the courts to have the power, on the expiry of the maximum period for initial detention laid down under national law, to order an extension of the period of detention for removal purposes, to replace the same with a less coercive measure or to order the release of the third-country national, the court is obliged in a situation such as that in the main proceedings to examine the legality of a detention review measure that gives the legal and factual reasons for the need to extend the period of detention and the length thereof by deciding on the merits on the continuation of detention, its replacement or the release of the person in question? c) it permits the court, having regard to the grounds for an extension of detention provided for under EU law, to examine the legality of a detention review measure that only gives reasons for which the decision to remove a third-country national cannot be implemented, by deciding the merits of the dispute in a decision on the continuation of detention, its replacement or the release of the person in question solely on the basis of facts stated and evidence adduced by the administrative authority and facts and objections stated by the third-country national?
4.

If the answer to the previous question is no, bearing in mind the specific features of the internal market, may a mark used intensively in a substantial part of the European Union be unknown to the relevant national consumer and therefore the other condition for the ground precluding registration in accordance with Article 4(3) of the Directive not be met, since there is no likelihood of detriment to, or unfair advantage being taken of, a mark’s repute or distinctive character? If so, what facts must the Community trade mark proprietor prove in order for that second condition to be met?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 3 April 2014 — Tamoil Italia v Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare

(Case C-156/14)

2014/C 194/18

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Tamoil Italia SpA

Respondent: Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare

Question referred

Do the European Union principles relating to the environment, laid down in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in Directive 2004/35/EC (1) of 21 April 2004 (Articles 1 and 8(3) and recitals 13 and 24 in the preamble) — specifically, the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the precautionary principle and the principles that preventive action should be taken and that environmental damage should be rectified at source as a matter of priority — preclude national legislation, such as the rules set out in Articles 244, 245 and 253 of Legislative Decree No 152 of 3 April 2006, which, in circumstances in which it is established that a site is contaminated and in which it is impossible to identify the polluter or to have that person adopt the restoration measures, do not permit the administrative authority to require the owner (who is not responsible for the pollution) to implement the emergency safety and decontamination measures, merely attributing to that person financial liability limited to the value of the site once the decontamination measures have been carried out?

(1) Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 56).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes (France) lodged on 13 February 2014 — Adiamix v Direction départementale des finances publiques — Pôle Gestion fiscale

(Case C-202/14)

2014/C 202/16

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Adiamix

Defendant: Direction départementale des finances publiques — Pôle Gestion fiscale

Question referred

The Court of Justice is requested to rule on the validity of European Commission Decision 2004/343/EC of 16 December 2003 on the exemption scheme established by Article 44 septies of the Code Général des Impôts concerning the takeover of firms in difficulty (1), with respect to classification of that scheme as an existing aid scheme.

(1) Commission Decision of 16 December 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in difficulty (OJ 2004 L 108, p. 38).
2)

Is it possible make provision, by means of a measure akin to an administrative measure, or indeed a protocol concluded between the national tax authorities and another State institution, for the transfer of the data base relating to the income earned by the citizens of a Member State from the national tax authorities to another institution of the Member State, without giving rise to a measure establishing privileged access, as defined in Article 124 TFEU?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 April 2014 — János Kárász v Nyugdíjfolyósító Igazgatóság

(Case C-199/14)

2014/C 245/05

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: János Kárász

Defendant: Nyugdíjfolyósító Igazgatóság

Question referred

May Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that cases of cessation, interruption or suspension of the payment of a retirement pension to which an entitlement has arisen because a certain age has been reached constitute an infringement of the right to property laid down in that provision?