ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 352/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Ronny Verest, Gaby Gerards v Belgische Staat

(Case C-489/13)

2013/C 352/12

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Ronny Verest, Gaby Gerards

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Does Article 56 of the EC Treaty preclude the taxation in one Member State, on a basis other than its local cadastral income, of immovable property situated in another Member State which is not rented out, assuming in particular in that case that the local cadastral income is determined in a similar way to the Belgian cadastral income from Belgian immovable property?
1.

Is a national provision, such as additional provision 7(1), rule 3(b) of Spain’s General Law on Social Security, contrary to Article 4 of Council Directive 79/7 (1) of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, in that it affects a group comprising mainly women, and according to which contribution gaps existing within the period for calculating the reference base of a permanent invalidity contributory pension, after a period of part-time employment, are covered by taking the minimum contribution bases applicable at any time, reduced as a result of the partiality coefficient of the employment before the contribution gap, whereas if the employment is full-time, there is no reduction?
2.

Must the goods imported by ADL American Dataline s.r.l. …, namely, ‘loudspeakers’ marketed separately from automatic data-processing machines, be regarded as devices ‘performing a specific function other than data processing’ — assuming that the reproduction and amplification of sound … must be regarded as such — or is it not possible to regard them as system units performing a specific function other than data processing, since, having regard to their specific technical characteristics (connection only via USB cable; operating system MAC OS 9 required), they ‘have no function which they would be capable of performing without the assistance of such a machine [that is to say, without the assistance of an automatic data-processing machine’ (see Case C-339/98 Peacock AG [2000] ECR I-8947, paragraphs 14 and 15, and Case C-142/06 Olicom [2007] ECR I-6675, paragraphs 20, 29 and 30, which, although referring to other types of device — network cards and ‘combination’ cards — seem to indicate that a lack of any ‘other’ specific function stems from the fact that (i) the device cannot function without a personal computer and (ii) the device has the capacity to accept and to convert at output signals transmitted by the processor)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 15/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 October 2013 — Abcur AB v Apoteket Farmaci AB

(Case C-544/13)

2014/C 15/08

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Stockholms tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Abcur AB

Defendant: Apoteket Farmaci AB

Questions referred

1. Can a prescription-only medicinal product for human use which is used only in emergency health care, for which no marketing authorisation has been granted by the competent authority in a Member State or pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93, (1) and which is prepared by an operator such as that involved in the proceedings before the Stockholms tingsrätt (Stockholm District Court) and ordered by health care institutions on the conditions material to the case before the Stockholms tingsrätt, be covered by any of the exceptions in Article 3(1) or (2) of Directive 2001/83 (2) on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, in particular in a situation where there is another authorised medicinal product with the same active substance, same dosage and same pharmaceutical form?

2. If a prescription-only medicinal product for human use such as that referred to in question 1 is covered by Article 3(1), 3(2) or 5(1) of Directive 2001/83, may legislation on advertising measures for medicinal products be regarded as non-harmonised or are the kind of measures which are purported in this case to constitute advertising governed by Directive 2006/114 (3) concerning misleading and comparative advertising?

3. If Directive 2006/114 concerning misleading and comparative advertising is applicable in accordance with question 2, under what basic conditions do the measures under consideration before the Stockholms tingsrätt (use of a product name, product number and AnatomicTherapeuticChemical code for the medicinal product, application of a fixed price for the medicinal product, supply of information on the medicinal product in the National Substance Register for Medicinal Products (NPL), attachment of an NPL identifier to the medicinal product, dissemination of an information sheet on the medicinal product, supply of the medicinal product via an electronic ordering service for health services and the supply of information on the medicinal product via a publication issued by a national professional organisation) constitute advertising within the meaning of Directive 2006/114?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (OJ 1993 L 214, p. 1).

(2) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

(3) 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).
1.

In proceedings relating to an administrative decision adopted when Directive 2003/55/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (‘the 2003 Directive’) was in force, do the provisions laid down in Article 25 of that directive, determining who is entitled to bring an action, apply, or are the provisions to be taken into consideration for the purposes of those proceedings those laid down in Article 41 of Directive 2009/73/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC (‘the 2009 Directive’), which entered into force during the proceedings, account being taken of the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of that directive, under which those provisions are to be applicable from 3 March 2011?
1.

Breach by the General Court of the principle of effective protection by failing to examine, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, the pleas in law relied on by Productos Asfálticos, S.A. in relation to the determination of the amount of the penalty. That breach consists of: — distortion by the General Court of the pleas in law relied on by PROAS in its action for annulment before the General Court; — lack of an independent analysis by the General Court as to the proportionality of and the statement of reasons for the penalty imposed in relation to the effects of the infringement; — failure of the General Court to carry out an analysis of observance by the Commission of the principle of equality of treatment and of legal certainty in relation to its earlier decisions; — failure to carry out an effective analysis in relation to PROAS’s specific weight in the infringement and incorrect refusal to grant the procedural measures requested.
4.

If the answer to question 1(a) is in the negative and the answer to question l(b)(i) is positive and the answer to question l(b)(ii) is negative, then in circumstances where: (i) in accordance with Art 7(1) [of the] Regulation, an application for an SPC for a product is lodged within six months of the date on which a valid authorisation to place that product on the market as a medicinal product has been granted in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC (2) or Directive 2001/82/EC (3); (ii) following the lodging of the application for the SPC, the competent industrial property office raises a potential objection to the grant of the SPC under Article 3(a) of the Regulation; (iii) following and in order to meet the aforesaid potential objection by the competent industrial property office, an application to amend the basic patent in force relied upon by the SPC applicant is made and granted; (iv) upon amendment of the basic patent in force, said amended patent complies with Article 3(a); does the SPC Regulation prevent the competent industrial property office from applying national procedural provisions to enable (a) suspension of the application for the SPC in order to allow the SPC applicant to apply to amend the basic patent, and (b) recommencement of said application at a later date once the amendment has been granted, the said date of recommencement being — after six months from the date on which a valid authorisation to place that product on the market as a medicinal product was granted but — within six months of the date on which the application to amend the basic patent in force was granted?
Finally, the General Court misapplied the rules on the burden of proof. It appears to be logical or at the least it cannot be excluded that certain documents were obtained as apparent ‘chance discoveries’ only because of prior unlawful information from Commission agents, that is, concerning an area outside of the subject-matter of the investigation. Since it is impossible for the appellants to establish the proof of such causality and since that circumstance is not imputable to them, a reversal of the burden of proof whereby it is for the Commission to adduce the evidence that those documents were in fact the result of a chance discovery should be required.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 25 November 2013 — AMBISIG-Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica Lda v NERSANT-Associação Empresarial da Região de Santarém, NÚCLEO INICIAL — Formação e Consultoria Lda

(Case C-601/13)

2014/C 39/13

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AMBISIG-Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica Lda

Defendants: NERSANT-Associação Empresarial da Região de Santarém, NÚCLEO INICIAL — Formação e Consultoria Lda

Question referred

With regard to a procurement contract for the provision of training and consultancy services, of an intellectual nature, is it compatible with Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, as amended, to lay down, among the factors making up the award criterion in relation to tenders in a public tendering procedure, a factor that evaluates the teams specifically put forward by the tenderers for the performance of the contract, having regard to the composition of the respective teams, their proven experience and analysis of their CVs?

(1) Directive 2004/18/EC 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 (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/26

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) of 20 November 2013 — Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero della Salute, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico v Ediltecnica SpA

(Case C-592/13)

2014/C 52/46

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero della Salute, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Respondent: Ediltecnica SpA

Question referred for a preliminary ruling

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/EC 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 2004 L 143, p. 56).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 November 2013 — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Others v Francesco Cimmino and Others

(Case C-607/13)

2014/C 61/04

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Others

Respondents: Francesco Cimmino and Others

Questions referred

1. On a proper construction of Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 2362/98, (1) under which it is the responsibility of the Member States to check that operators are commercially active for their own account as importers into the Community and as independent economic units in terms of management, staffing and operations, is all import activity carried out on behalf of a traditional operator by persons who only formally satisfy the requirements laid down by that regulation in respect of ‘new operators’ to be excluded from the customs benefits normally granted to new operators?

2. Does Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 permit a traditional operator to sell bananas which are outside the European Union to a newcomer with which it has reached an agreement under which the bananas are to be imported into the European Union at a preferential rate of duty and are to be resold to that traditional operator at a price agreed upon prior to the whole transaction, without the newcomer bearing any actual business risk or making any arrangements regarding the resources necessary for carrying out that transaction?

3. Does the agreement referred to in Question 2 constitute an infringement of the prohibition, laid down in Article 21(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2362/98, on the transfer of rights from new operators to traditional operators, with the result that the transfer carried out remains ineffective and the duty is payable in full and not at a preferential rate, in accordance with Article 4(3) of Regulation No 2988/95? (2)

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).

(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).
1.

Is there a posting of workers according to European law, and specifically according to the definition of posting of workers contained in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-307/09 to C-309/09 (1) where a contractor undertakes to process sides of beef, using its own workforce, in premises rented from the client in the client’s slaughterhouse and packages them in market-ready packs of meat, and a price is payable to the contractor per kilogram of processed meat, and in the event that the processing is of insufficient quality the contractor has to accept a deduction from the price for meat processing, bearing in mind that in the host State the contractor supplies the service exclusively to that client and the client also monitors the quality of the meat processing work?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/25

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 6 November 2013 — Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Careggi-Firenze v Data Medical Service srl

(Case C-568/13)

2014/C 52/45

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Careggi-Firenze

Respondent: Data Medical Service srl

Questions referred

1. Does Article 1 of Directive 50/1992, (1) read also in the light of the later Article 1(8) of Directive 18/2004, (2) preclude a national rule which was interpreted as excluding the appellant in the present proceedings, by dint of the fact that it is a commercially-run hospital characterisable as a public economic entity, from participating in tendering procedures?

2. Does European Union law on public procurement — in particular, the general principles of freedom of competition, non-discrimination and proportionality — preclude a national rule under which a body like the appellant hospital, which receives public funding on a permanent basis and is directly contracted to provide a public service, is able to derive from that situation a decisive competitive advantage over rival economic operators, as demonstrated by the size of the discount offered, in circumstances in which corrective measures have not been put in place at the same time in order to prevent that kind of distortion of competition?

(1) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).

(2) Directive 2004/18/EC 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 (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).
1.

Must the requirement that an agricultural area not be used for ‘non-agricultural activities’ within the meaning of Article 44(2) of Regulation No 1782/2003 (1) and the requirement that an agricultural area be used for ‘an agricultural activity or … predominantly used for agricultural activities’ within the meaning of Article 34(2)(a) of Regulation No 73/2009 (2) be interpreted as meaning that it is a condition for aid that the primary purpose of an area’s use be agricultural? (a) If so, the Court of Justice is requested to specify what parameters must be taken into account in deciding what purpose of use is the ‘primary’ use where an area is used for several different purposes at the same time. (b) If so, the Court of Justice is further requested to state whether, where applicable, that means that safety areas surrounding runways and taxi and stop-ways at airports, which are part of the airport and are subject to special rules and restrictions, such those at issue, relating to the use of the land, but at the same time are also used to harvest grass for the production of feed pellets, are by their nature and use eligible for aid under the above provisions.
1.

(a) Do the substantive and procedural privileges conferred upon ‘A.T.E. A.E.’ by Articles 12 and 13(1) of Law 4332/1929, in conjunction with Article 26(1) of Law 1914/1990, fall within the scope of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? (b) Does the same restriction apply even if it is assumed that ‘A.T.E. A.E.’ continues to engage in activity of ‘public benefit’ under its statutes?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/2

Appeal brought on 17 December 2013 by Zoo Sport Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2013 in Case T-453/12: Zoo Sport Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and intervener before the General Court K-2 Corp.

(Case C-676/13 P)

2014/C 303/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Zoo Sport Ltd (represented by: I. Rungg, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and K-2 Corp.

By order of 15 July 2014 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/19

Action brought on 10 December 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-653/13)

2014/C 93/30

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and E. Sanfrutos Cano, Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-297/08 Commission v Italy [2010], in which it was held that, by failing to adopt, for the region of Campania, all the measures necessary to ensure that waste is recovered and disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment and, in particular, by failing to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations, the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2006/12/EC; (1)

— order the Italian Republic to pay the Commission a daily penalty of EUR 256 819,20 (that is, EUR 85 606,40 per day per installation category), minus any reductions which may follow from the gradual reduction formula proposed, from the day of delivery of the judgment in the present case until the day on which the judgment in Case C-297/08 is complied with;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the Commission a lump sum, that sum being the product of multiplying a daily sum of EUR 28 089,60 by the number of days of continued infringement from the day on which the judgment in Case C-297/08 was delivered until the day of delivery of the judgment in the present case;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission claims that Italy has failed to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-297/08. According to the Commission, the proposed penalty (a daily penalty payment plus a lump sum payment) is commensurate with the seriousness and duration of the infringement and takes into account the need to ensure that the penalty is a deterrent against further infringements.

(1) Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (OJ 2006 L 11, p. 9).