ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

In the event that the answer to the previous question is that the provision of Spanish law is not compatible with the article of the Charter in question, is the case-law of the Court of Justice, and in particular its judgment in Case C-169/14 (2) Sánchez Morcillo and Abril García, therefore applicable to this case?
1.

Inasmuch as Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market excludes transport activities from the scope of that directive, must the activity carried out for profit by the defendant, consisting of acting as an intermediary between the owner of a vehicle and a person who needs to make a journey within a city, by managing the IT resources — in the words of the defendant, ‘intelligent telephone and technological platform’ interface and software application — which enable them to connect with one another, be considered to be merely a transport service or must it be considered to be an electronic intermediary service or an information society service, as defined by Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC (2) 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 and of rules on Information Society services?
2)

Consequently, is it permissible under Article 3 of the First Council Directive 68/151/EC of 9 March 1968 [on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community], by way of derogation from [the principles] that there should be no time limit and that anyone may consult the data published in the companies register, for the data no longer to be subject to ‘disclosure’, in both those regards, but to be available for only a limited period and only to certain recipients, on the basis of an assessment case by case by the data manager?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Taranto (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Davide Durante

(Case C-438/15)

(2015/C 381/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Taranto

Party to the main proceedings

Davide Durante

Question referred

Must Articles 43, 49 and 56 et seq. TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation in the field of betting and gambling which, for the purposes of the launching of a fresh call for tenders for the award of licences as provided for by Article [10](9 g) of Law No 44 of 26 April 2012, regards as grounds for exclusion from the tendering procedure a tenderer’s failure to demonstrate economic and financial capacity, without providing, for the purpose of that demonstration, when references are supplied by one bank only, for appropriate criteria other than the stipulated requirement of two different references given by two different banking institutions?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 20 August 2015 — Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Comune di Portoscuso

(Case C-449/15)

(2015/C 381/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Regione autonoma della Sardegna

Defendant: Comune di Portoscuso

Question referred

Do the principles of freedom of establishment, non-discrimination and safeguarding competition, respectively laid down in Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU, and the precept of reasonableness implicit therein, preclude national legislation under which the validity of concessions of economically significant publicly-owned maritime, lakeside and waterway assets is to be repeatedly extended through a succession of legislative acts, the duration of that validity being statutorily increased for at least 11 years, with the effect that the same concessionaire retains the exclusive right to exploit the asset economically, even though the period of validity under the concession awarded to that concessionaire has meanwhile expired, whereby interested economic operators are deprived of any opportunity of obtaining a concession for the asset on the basis of a public tendering procedure?
3.

If Question 2 is answered in the negative: is classification as blood solely dependent on the intended purpose of the blood plasma, or also on the uses to which the blood plasma may theoretically be put?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 21 September 2015 — R v S and T

(Case C-492/15)

(2015/C 398/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Respondent and applicant: R

Applicants and respondents: S and T

Question referred

Does Article 35(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (Brussels IIa Regulation) preclude a stay, by the appellate court, of proceedings for non-recognition under Article 21(3) of the regulation or for a declaration of enforceability under Article 28 et seq. of the regulation if an application is lodged in the Member State of enforcement for amendment of the judgment on rights of custody of the State of origin which is to be declared enforceable and the Member State of enforcement has international jurisdiction for that application for amendment?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/20

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 24 September 2015 — Agro Foreign Trade & Agency Ltd v Petersime NV

(Case C-507/15)

(2015/C 414/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agro Foreign Trade & Agency Ltd

Defendant: Petersime NV

Question referred

Is the Belgian Handelsagentuurwet, (1) which transposes the Commercial Agency Directive into Belgian national law, in accordance with that Directive and/or the provisions of the Association Agreement which has as its express aim the accession of Turkey to the European Union and/or the obligations between Turkey and the European Union to eliminate restrictions with regard to the free movement of services between them, when that Belgian Handelsagentuurwet provides that it only applies to commercial agents whose principal place of business is in Belgium, and does not apply when a principal established in Belgium and an agent established in Turkey have explicitly chosen Belgian law?

(1) Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17).
in the alternative: amend the judgment under appeal, giving a definitive ruling on the dispute and, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction, reducing the fine imposed on the appellant, taking into account (i) the evidence produced in the proceedings at first instance, (ii) the sanctioning Guidelines in force at the time of the alleged events, and (iii) the shorter period of participation in the cartel which, for SLM/ORI, started at the end of 1999, the only date for which there is consistent evidence available to support allegations of such participation;

in any event: order the European Commission to pay the costs.
1)

Is Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 10 and Article 4(3) TEU, compatible with rules laid down in the regulation on the tariff applying to procuradores, namely Royal Decree 1373/2003 of 7 November 2003, which provides that their remuneration is subject to a minimum tariff or scale, which can be varied, upwards or downwards, only by 12 % and when it is impossible for the authorities of the Member State, including the courts, to depart from those minima even in exceptional circumstances?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/23

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 8 October 2015 — Melitta France SAS and Others v Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie

(Case C-530/15)

(2015/C 414/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Melitta France SAS, Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG, Délipapier, Gopack SAS, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA, Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL, Kimberly-Clark SAS, Lucart France, Paul Hartmann AG, SCA Hygiène Products, SCA Tissue France SAS, Group’Hygiène syndicat professionnel

Defendant: Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie

Question referred

The Court is asked to decide whether by including ‘roll cores’ (rolls, tubes, cylinders) around which flexible material, such as paper or plastic film, is wound and sold to consumers in the examples of packaging, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 (1) has misconstrued the term ‘packaging’, as defined in Article 3 of Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994, (2) and exceeded the scope of the authorisation granted to the European Commission in respect of its implementing powers.

(1) Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10).

(2) European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 8 September 2015 — Peter Radgen, Lilian Radgen v Finanzamt Ettlingen

(Case C-478/15)

(2016/C 016/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Peter Radgen, Lilian Radgen

Defendant: Finanzamt Ettlingen

Question referred

Must the provisions of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons of 21 June 1999 (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6), in particular its preamble, Articles 1, 2, 4, 11, 16, 21 thereof and Articles 7, 9 and 15 of Annex I thereto, be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a citizen with unlimited tax liability in that State is denied the deduction of a tax-free allowance for a part-time teaching activity because that activity is not carried out for or on behalf of a public-law legal person established in a Member State of the European Union or in a State to which the Agreement on the European Economic Area applies, but is carried out for or on behalf of a public-law legal person established in the territory of the Swiss Confederation?
1.

Must [Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU], as well as the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness, be interpreted as precluding national legislation in the field of betting and gambling which provides for the organisation of a fresh call for tenders (as governed by Article [10(9]g) of Law No 44 of 26 April 2012) for the award of licences that includes clauses excluding from the tendering procedure undertakings which have failed to meet the condition relating to economic and financial standing as a result of the failure to provide for criteria other than the requirement of two bank references from two separate banks?
1)

Must the requirement for proportionality laid down in Article 9a of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (1) (‘the Eurovignette Directive’) be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a system of penalties such as that laid down in Annex 9 to Decree No 410/2007 of 29 December on the list of traffic offences subject to the penalty of an administrative fine, the amount of the fines that may be imposed in the event of breach of the relevant provisions, the system of imposing those fines and the conditions for participating in controls [a közigazgatási bírsággal sújtandó közlekedési szabályszegések köréről, az e tevékenységekre vonatkozó rendelkezések megsértése esetén kiszabható bírságok összegéről, felhasználásának rendjéről és az ellenőrzésben történő közreműködés feltételeiről szóló 410/2007. (XII. 29.) Korm. Rendelet] (‘the Law on penalties’) which provides for the imposition of a fine at a certain amount — unrelated to the gravity of the offence — in the event of failure to comply with the requirements relating to the acquisition of a route ticket?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Paris (France) lodged on 4 November 2015 — Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS v ITM Alimentaire International SASU

(Case C-562/15)

(2016/C 027/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS

Respondent: ITM Alimentaire International SASU

Questions referred

1. Whether Article 4(a) and (c) of Directive 2006/114/EC of 12 December 2006 (1) …, which provides that ‘[c]omparative advertising shall … be permitted when … it is not misleading [and] it objectively compares one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those goods and services’, must be interpreted as meaning that a comparison of the price of goods sold by retail outlets is permitted only if the goods are sold in shops having the same format or of the same size;

2. Whether the fact that the shops whose prices are compared are of different sizes and formats constitutes material information within the meaning of Directive 2005/29/EC (2) that must necessarily be brought to the knowledge of the consumer;

3. If so, to what degree and/or via what medium must that information be disseminated to the consumer?

(1) Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 21).

(2) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/27

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 9 November 2015 — État belge v Oxycure Belgium SA

(Case C-573/15)

(2016/C 038/39)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: État belge

Respondent: Oxycure Belgium SA

Question referred

Does Article 98(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) read in conjunction with Annex III, points 3 et 4 of the VAT Directive, having regard to, in particular, the principle of neutrality, preclude a national provision which prescribes a reduced rate of VAT for oxygen treatment by means of oxygen cylinders, whereas oxygen treatment by means of an oxygen concentrator is subject to the standard rate of VAT?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/22

Action brought on 17 November 2015 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-606/15)

(2016/C 027/26)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková, J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that: — by entrusting to the investigating body the function of supervision of the railway system, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(1) of Directive 2004/49/EC; — by failing to ensure that the investigating body starts its investigation no later than one week after receipt of the report of an accident or incident, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(3) of Directive 2004/49/EC; — by failing to ensure that the final report of its investigation is communicated to the relevant parties referred to in Article 22(3) of Directive 2004/49/EC, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(2) of Directive 2004/49/EC; — by failing to ensure that the investigating body addresses safety recommendations to the safety authority, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first sentence of Article 25(2) of Directive 2004/49/EC; — by failing to lay down an obligation of the safety authority to take measures to ensure that safety recommendations are duly taken into consideration and acted upon, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second sentence of Article 25(2) of Directive 2004/49/EC; — by failing to lay down an obligation of the safety authority to report back at least annually on measures that are taken or planned as a consequence of safety recommendations, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 25(3) of Directive 2004/49/EC;

— order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its application, the Commission puts forward the following arguments:

The Czech Republic did not, by 30 June 2015, when the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion expired, communicate any amendment to its national legislation to ensure its compliance with Articles 19(1), 21(3), 23(2) and 25(2) and (3) of Directive 2004/49/EC. (1)

(1) Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive) (OJ 2004 L 164, p. 44, corrigendum OJ 2004 L 220, p. 16).
3.

Third plea in law: breach of essential procedural requirements governing the legislative process, and infringement of Article 10(1) and (2) TEU, Article 13(2) TEU, and the principles of representative democracy, institutional balance and sound administration Should the Court of Justice, contrary to the submissions of the Slovak Republic in the second plea in law, reach the conclusion that the contested decision was adopted by the legislative process (quod non), the Slovak Republic pleads, in the alternative, infringement of essential procedural requirements laid down in Article 16(8) TEU, Article 15(2) TFEU, Article 78(3) TFEU, Articles 3 and 4 of Protocol No 1, Articles 6 and 7(1) and (2) of Protocol No 2, and also infringement of Article 10(1) and (2) TEU, Article 13(2) TEU, and the principles of representative democracy, institutional balance and sound administration. Specifically, there was a failure to comply with the requirement of publicity of negotiating and voting in the Council, a restriction of the participation of national parliaments in the process of adopting the contested decision, and a breach of the condition of consultation of the European Parliament.
1.

Must Article 107 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the participation of the Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA in the capital of the project company Hidro Tarnița SA, whose object is to construct and operate the Tarnița-Lăpuștești hydroelectric power station, constitutes State aid to the producers of wind and photovoltaic energy in that the declared aim of the project is to guarantee optimal conditions for the installation of greater capacity in the power stations which produce those types of energy, that is to say: (i) is it a measure financed by the State or through State resources, (ii) is it selective in nature, and (iii) can it affect trade between the Member States?
2.

Do Articles 3(1), 4(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 693 LEC, which allows a claim to be made for accelerated repayment of the total amount of the loan on the grounds of failure to pay three monthly instalments, without account being taken of other factors such as the duration or amount of the loan or any other relevant matters, and which also makes the possibility of avoiding the effects of such accelerated repayment dependent on the will of the creditor except in cases in which the mortgage is secured on the mortgagor’s permanent residence?
3.

If the second question is answered in the affirmative, can such a practice in principle be justified as an appropriate and necessary means for safeguarding the enhanced customer due diligence measures provided for in Article 13 of Directive 2005/60/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing?
2.

By their second ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 55 to 57 of the judgment under appeal, which can be summed up by the statement that ‘it is not apparent from Article 215(2) TFEU that individual restrictive measures taken against natural or legal persons and groups or non-State entities must be adopted according to the procedure laid down in Article 215(1) TFEU’. First, Article 215(1) TFEU, the only provision of the FEU Treaty dealing with restrictive measures, lays down clearly that the procedure applicable with respect to such measures is that provided for in that article, and does not provide for any other; secondly, Article 291 TFEU is incompatible with Article 215(2) TFEU; alternatively, Article 291(2) TFEU cannot be regarded as being capable of providing the Council with an additional legal basis for the adoption of restrictive measures over and above that constituted by Article 215(2) TFEU; lastly, and alternatively, even if it is held that Article 291(2) TFEU is capable of providing the Council with an additional legal basis for the adoption of restrictive measures over and above that constituted by Article 215(2) TFEU, the recourse to that legal basis is none the less unlawful in the present case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Zalaegerszegi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 15 June 2015 — EURO 2004. Hungary Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

(Case C-291/15)

(2016/C 098/21)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Zalaegerszegi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EURO 2004. Hungary Kft

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

Question referred

Must Article 181a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 be interpreted as precluding a practice of a Member State whereby the customs value is determined on the basis of the ‘transaction value of similar goods’ if it is considered that the declared transaction value, in comparison with the statistical average of the purchase prices verified in the context of the importation of similar goods, is unreasonably low and, consequently, incorrect, despite the fact that the customs authority does not refute or call into question the authenticity of the invoice or the bank transfer certificate produced in order to establish the price actually paid for the imported goods, without the importer having submitted additional evidence to demonstrate the transaction value?