ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it relevant for this purpose that the time limit imposed in respect of applications for subsidiary protection serves the important interest of ensuring that applications for international protection are dealt within a reasonable time?
2.

Must the provisions of Articles 10, 46 and 47 of Directive 2004/17 be understood and interpreted, whether together or separately (but without limitation to those provisions), as meaning that: (a) the principles of equal treatment of suppliers and transparency are not infringed in the case where the contracting authority: — provides beforehand, in the procurement documents, a general option of combining the professional capacities of suppliers, but does not set out the scheme for implementing this option; — subsequently, in the course of the public procurement procedure, it defines in greater detail the requirements governing the appraisal of the qualifications of suppliers by laying down certain restrictions on combining the professional capacities of suppliers; — because of this more detailed definition of the content of the qualification requirements, it extends the deadline for tender submissions and announces this extension in the Official Journal? (b) a restriction on the combining of suppliers’ capacities does not have to be clearly indicated in advance if the specific character of the contracting authority’s activities and the special features of the public procurement contract make such a restriction foreseeable and justifiable?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 337/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Roma (Italy) lodged on 16 July 2015 — Mercedes Benz Italia SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate Direzione Provinciale Roma 3

(Case C-378/15)

(2015/C 337/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mercedes Benz Italia SpA

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate Direzione Provinciale Roma 3

Question referred

For the purposes of exercising the right of deduction, are national provisions (in particular Articles 19(5) and 19-bis of Decree 633/1972 of the President of the Republic) and the practice of the national tax authorities which require that reference be had to the composition of a trader’s turnover, including in order to identify so-called incidental transactions, but make no provision for a method of calculation that is based on [both] the composition and the actual destination of the acquisitions and that objectively reflects the actual share of the expenditure attributable to each of the — taxed and untaxed — activities engaged in by the taxpayer incompatible with an interpretation of Articles 168, 173, 174 and 175 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) which is guided by the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and neutrality, as set out in Community law?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
4.

The Commission considers that, since the urban waste water of four agglomerations (Prosotsani, Doxato, Eleftheroupoli and Vagia) is not subject before discharge to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, Article 4 of the directive is infringed. Furthermore, the Greek authorities themselves acknowledge that those agglomerations will comply fully with the provisions of the directive only when the co-funded projects have been completed. According to the Commission, although the necessary projects have already been included in priority axis ‘02 Protection and Management of Water Resources’ of the operational programme ‘Environment and Sustainable Development’, it is not envisaged that they will be completed in good time in respect of the agglomerations of Eleftheroupoli and Prosotsani, whilst the Greek authorities did not give a clear date for the agglomerations of Vagia and Doxato. It is apparent from the Greek authorities’ responses that operation of the relevant plant of Galatitsa is problematic and that it will have to be upgraded in order to operate in accordance with the directive’s provisions.
1.

In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, are Articles 1(1) and 2(1)(a) of Directive 89/665 (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as Section 310(2) of Ley 30/2007, de 30 de octubre, de Contratos del Sector Público (now Section 40(2) RDLeg 3/2011, que aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Contratos del Sector Público), in so far as it prevents access to the special application in procurement proceedings in respect of the procedural acts of the procurement board, such as the decision to admit a tender from a tenderer which, it is alleged, fails to comply with the provisions concerning proof of technical and economic solvency laid down in the national and EU legislation?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 3 August 2015 — New Wave CZ a.s. v Alltoys spol. s r. o.

(Case C-427/15)

(2015/C 371/17)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: New Wave CZ a.s.

Defendant: Alltoys spol. s r. o.

Question referred

Must Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights be interpreted as meaning that it is in the context of proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right if, after the definitive termination of proceedings in which it was declared that an intellectual property right was infringed, the applicant in separate proceedings seeks information on the origin and distribution networks of the goods or services by which that intellectual property right is infringed (for example, for the purpose of being able to quantify the damage precisely and subsequently seek compensation for it)?

(1) OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/25

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 2 September 2015 — Openbaar Ministerie v A

(Case C-463/15)

(2015/C 363/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: A

Question referred

Do Article 2(4) and Article 4, paragraph 1, of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) permit the executing Member State to transpose those provisions into its national law in such a manner as to require that the act should be punishable under its law and that, under its law, a custodial sentence of a maximum period of at least twelve months is laid down for that act?

(1) 2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/20

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 11 September 2015 — Ibrica Zulfikarpašić v Slaven Gajer

(Case C-484/15)

(2015/C 389/21)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu, Stalna služba u Samoboru

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ibrica Zulfikarpašić

Defendant: Slaven Gajer

Question referred

A ruling is sought from the Court of Justice of the European Union as to whether the provisions of the Law on Enforcement, concerning the European Enforcement Order, comply with Regulation (EC) No 805/2004, (1) that is to say whether, in the Republic of Croatia in relation to the issue of a writ of execution based on an authentic document in enforcement proceedings, the term ‘court’ includes notaries, whether notaries can issue European Enforcement Orders in respect of definitive and enforceable writs of execution based on authentic documents when those writs have not been contested, and where the answer is in the negative, whether the courts can issue European Enforcement Orders in respect of writs of execution based on an authentic document prepared by a notary, when the content of those writs relates to uncontested claims, and in such a case what form should be used.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15).
—

The General Court — demonstrating, as did the Commission before it, the clear limits of its knowledge and understanding of the dynamics of the insurance industry, with particular reference to Excess of Loss (XoL) reinsurance — made serious and manifest errors, making findings of fact the substantive inaccuracy of which is apparent from the documents submitted to it. The reinsurer’s exposure to risk in excess of the claim does not increase where the reinsurer’s participation in the risk coverage is very high; this is because the higher participation in the XoL treaty is reflected in proportionately higher commission payments received. Moreover, for the reinsurer there is no increase of the risk where the ceding insurer finds itself in financial difficulty since, under a XoL treaty, the main risk of loss for the reinsurer in not connected with the difficulties of the ceding company but rather the risk of insolvency on the part of the purchasers of the insured parties. It should be added that there was absolutely no risk of default on the part of the ceding company SACE BT, even in the event of financial difficulty, given that the payment to the parent company of the commission for subscribing to the reinsurance treaty was in the form of a single advance payment and, if that payment had not been made, there would simply have been no reinsurance coverage. The XoL treaty in question did not relate only to 25 % of the risks reinsured by SACE BT and it is therefore incorrect to claim that a second treaty under which provision was made for a different rate of commission could have been negotiated with SACE SpA in so far as concerns the outstanding balance of the reinsurance coverage, as stated in the judgment under appeal. Lastly, the General Court totally distorted the argument that — as SACE SpA entered into the treaty and therefore had risk reinsurance only from 5 June 2009, even though it received in return a commission calculated on an annual basis — that company actually benefited from an implicit 5/12 increase in the rate of commission received by comparison with the commission paid by SACE BT to private reinsurers in respect of the risk period already elapsed without any claims being made. Given that those circumstances are apparent from the contested decision, the General Court erred in law in stating that they were not brought to the Commission’s attention during the administrative procedure. As SACE simply put forward — in the context of its second plea in law in support of its action and by way of amplification — a further argument that the substantive requirement for a finding that there was an advantage was not fulfilled, the General court incorrectly classified the argument in question as an inadmissible new plea in law.
—

reduce the fine imposed on SLM on its own account and as a result of its joint liability, primarily 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 marginal role played by the appellant and the shorter period of its participation in the cartel which, for SLM, started at the end of 1999, the only date for which there is consistent indisputable evidence available to support allegations of such participation;
If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative:

Is Article 19(2) of the Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 (2011/278/EU) to be interpreted as precluding the application of the national implementing provision in Paragraph 18(4) of the Zuteilungsverordnung 2020 (2020 Allocation Regulation) to installations for the generation of electricity with regard to the determination of the start of the emissions trading obligation?
3.

Taking account of Article 153(5) TFEU and of the objectives of Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, must Article 2 of that Directive, in so far as it defines the principal concepts used in the Directive, in particular those of working time and rest periods, be interpreted to the effect that it is not applicable to the concept of working time which serves to determine the remuneration owed in the case of home-based on-call time?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 406/13

Appeal brought on 19 January 2015 by Mr Eugen Popp and Mr Stefan M. Zech against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 in Case T-463/12 Eugen Popp and Stefan M. Zech v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-17/15 P)

(2015/C 406/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Eugen Popp and Stefan M. Zech (represented by: A. Kockläuner and O. Nilgen, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

The Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal in a judgment of 26 October 2015 and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.
1.

Is Article 13 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the rightholder whose economic rights of copyright have been infringed may seek redress for the damage which it has incurred on the basis of general principles, or, without having to prove loss and the causal relationship between the event which infringed its rights and the loss, may seek payment of a sum of money corresponding to twice the amount of the appropriate fee, or, in the event of a culpable infringement, three times the amount of the appropriate fee, whereas Article 13 of Directive 2004/48 states that it is a judicial authority which must decide on damages by taking into account the factors listed in Article 13(1)(a), and only as an alternative in certain cases may set the damages as a lump sum, taking into consideration the elements listed in Article 13(1)(b) of that directive?
2.

Independently of the answers to Questions 1a and 1b: Is Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are thereby empowered, in a case such as the present, in which a third-country national from Iran, who obtained her university degree from the Sharif University of Technology (Tehran) in Iran, which specialises in technology, engineering and physics, seeks entry for the purpose of taking up doctoral studies in the area of IT-security research within the framework of the ‘Trusted Embedded and Mobile Systems’ project, in particular the development of effective security mechanisms for smartphones, to deny entry to their territory, stating as grounds for this refusal that it could not be ruled out that the skills acquired in connection with the research project might be misused in Iran, for instance for the acquisition of sensitive information in Western countries, for the purpose of internal repression or more generally in connection with human rights violations?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/14

Action brought on 22 September 2015 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-502/15)

(2016/C 016/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the United Kingdom, by failing to correctly apply the Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste water treatment, with regard to Gowerton and Llanelli, Gibraltar and 11 agglomerations, has failed to fulfil the obligations arising from Articles 3, 4, 5 and 10 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

— order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action the Commission requests the Court to declare that the United Kingdom has failed to implement correctly, in Gowerton and Llanelli, Gibraltar and 11 agglomerations, Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment.

The Commission considers, in particular, that the United Kingdom has not ensured that the waters collected in a combined urban waste waters and rainwater system in Gowerton and Llanelli are retained and conducted for treatment in compliance with the requirements of Article 3, 4, 10 and Annex I(A) and Annex I(B) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC.

Furthermore, the Commission takes the view that by either not putting in place secondary or equivalent treatment or not providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance in this respect with the Directive 91/271/EEC with regard to 3 agglomerations, as well as by not subjecting the urban waste water in Gibraltar to any treatment, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4, Annex I(B) and Annex I(D) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC.

Finally, it is argued that the United Kingdom has not correctly complied with the obligations arising from Article 5, Annex I(B) and Annex I(D) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC, as it has failed to ensure that urban waste water entering collecting systems from 8 agglomerations, before discharge into sensitive areas, is made subject to more stringent treatment.

The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 30 June 1993.

(1) OJ L 135, p. 40.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 24 September 2015 — Recep Kilic v Land Berlin

(Case C-509/15)

(2016/C 016/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Recep Kilic

Defendant: Land Berlin

Question referred

Can the extension of the residence permit of a family member — who was permitted to join the principal person entitled at a time when the latter was not duly registered as belonging to the labour force — at a date on which the principal person entitled, with whom the family member is lawfully resident, has become an employed person be regarded as constituting an ‘authorisation to join’ for the purposes of Article 7 of EEC-Turkey Association Council Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/26

Appeal brought on 20 November 2015 by Toshiba Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-104/13: Toshiba Corp. v European Commission

(Case C-623/15 P)

(2016/C 027/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Toshiba Corp. (represented by: J. F. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, J. Jourdan, avocat, A. Kadri, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in Case T-104/13 insofar as it upheld the finding of the European Commission that Toshiba is jointly and severally liable for the conduct of MTPD;

— Annul the Decision of the European Commission in Case COMP/39.437 TV and Computer Monitor Tubes insofar as it found that Toshiba infringed Article 101 TFEU and held Toshiba jointly and severally liable for the conduct of MTPD;

— Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law:

The General Court misapplied the concept of undertaking by incorrectly classifying certain elements as indicating that Toshiba was in a position to, or did actually, exercise decisive influence over MTPD and by concluding that the sum of those elements was sufficient to support the conclusion that Toshiba did exercise such influence over MTPD.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 13 November 2015 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v British Film Institute

(Case C-592/15)

(2016/C 027/23)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Defendant: British Film Institute

Questions referred

i. Are the terms of Article 13A(1)(n) of the Sixth Directive (1), in particular the words ‘certain cultural services’, sufficiently clear and precise such that Article 13A(1)(n) is of direct effect so as to exempt the supply of those cultural services by bodies governed by public law or other recognised cultural bodies, such as the supplies made by the Respondent in the present case, in the absence of any domestic implementing legislation?

ii. Do the terms of Article 13A(1)(n) of the Sixth Directive, in particular the words ‘certain cultural services’, permit Member States any discretion in their application by means of implementing legislation and, if so, what discretion?

iii. Do the same conclusions as above apply to Article 132(1)(n) of the Principal VAT Directive (2)?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment

OJ L 145, p. 1.

(2) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

OJ L 347, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/37

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Hummel Holding A/S v Nike Inc. and Nike Retail B.V.

(Case C-617/15)

(2016/C 038/50)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hummel Holding A/S

Defendants: Nike Inc., Nike Retail B.V.

Question referred

Under which circumstances is a legally distinct second-tier subsidiary, with its seat in an EU Member State, of an undertaking that itself has no seat in the European Union to be considered as an ‘establishment’ of that undertaking within the meaning of Article 97(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark? (1)

(1) OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/7

Appeal brought on 24 April 2015 by Fetim BV against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 February 2015 in Case T-395/12: Fetim v OHIM

(Case C-190/15 P)

(2016/C 048/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Fetim BV (represented by: L. Bakers, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

By order of 19 November 2015 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
1.

Are Articles 34 and 35 of Law 1/2000 incompatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(2) of Directive [93/13/EEC (1)] and Articles 6(1)(d), 11 and 12 of Directive 2005/29/EC (2) inasmuch as they preclude any examination ex officio of possible unfair terms or unfair commercial practices in contracts concluded between lawyers and natural persons who are acting for purposes which are outside their trade, business or profession?