ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Must Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Brussels I Regulation’) be interpreted as also covering proceedings for the review of the reasonableness of the consideration which a majority shareholder is required to provide, as equivalent value for participating securities, to the previous owners of participating securities which were transferred to it as a result of a decision at a general meeting of a public limited company on the compulsory transfer of the other participating securities to that majority shareholder (otherwise known as a ‘squeeze out’), where the resolution adopted at the general meeting of the public limited company determines the amount of the reasonable consideration and where there is a court decision granting entitlement to a different amount of consideration which is binding on the majority shareholder and on the company as regards the basis of the right granted, as well as vis-à-vis the other owners of the participating securities?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 16 September 2016 — Caterpillar Financial Services Poland sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

(Case C-500/16)

(2017/C 022/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Caterpillar Financial Services Poland sp. z o.o., Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

Question referred

Having regard to the interpretation of the Court of Justice in its judgment of 17 January 2013 in Case C-224/11, BGŻ Leasing sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie, do the principles of effectiveness, sincere cooperation and equivalence expressed in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, or any other principle laid down in EU law, preclude, in the field of value added tax, national legislation or a national practice which precludes the refund of overpayment resulting from the collection of VAT contrary to EU law where, as a result of the action of the national authorities, an individual was unable to exercise his or her rights until after the limitation period for the tax liability had expired?
1.

Is an End of Procedure Notice issued by the reference member state under Article 28(4) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use before expiry of the basic patent to be treated as equivalent to a granted marketing authorisation for the purposes of Article 3(b) of European Parliament and Council Regulation 469/2009/EC (2) of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (codified version) (the ‘SPC Regulation’), such that an applicant for an SPC in the Member State in question is entitled to apply for and be granted an SPC on the basis of the End of Procedure Notice?
If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the affirmative:

On the basis of which objective criteria is this comparison between vertical and horizontal elasticity to be made?
1.

First, the General Court applied the wrong legal test when assessing whether the Council had evidence to decide that domestic raw materials prices contained in the records of the relevant Indonesian exporters were sufficiently distorted to justify disregarding them and having recourse to the methodology provided by Article 2(5) of the Basic Regulation (1), second paragraph. In doing so, the General Court has imposed too high a burden of proof on the Institution.
If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:

Must that provision also be applied to a change in reservation which was not instigated by the air carrier, but by the tour operator alone?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/16

Appeal brought on 25 November 2016 by Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 15 September 2016 in Case T-220/13 Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission

(Case C-622/16 P)

(2017/C 038/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl (represented by: E. Gambaro, F. Mazzocchi, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Italian Republic

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment dismissing the action brought by Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori and, consequently, annul Commission Decision 2013/284/EU (1) in so far as it considered that the recovery of the aid in the form of the exemption from the imposta comunale sugli immobili (ICI) (municipal tax on real estate) should not be ordered and that the measures relating to the exemption from IMU (imposta municipale propria) (the Municipality’s own property tax) did not fall within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU;

— in any event set aside those parts of the judgment covered by such pleas in the appeal as the Court may find valid and well founded;

— order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1) By its first plea in law, divided into four parts, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori claims infringement and misapplication of Article 108 TFEU, Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) and the duty of sincere cooperation in Article 4(3) TEU, misinterpretation of the concept of absolute impossibility, incorrect legal characterisation of the facts, distortion of certain evidence and contradictory reasoning, in that the General Court found that the Commission did not err in failing to order the Italian Republic to recover the sums relating to the tax exemptions which non-commercial entities for specific purposes benefitted from under the ICI rules, which the Commission considered unlawful and incompatible with the internal market.

2) By its second plea in law, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori claims that Article 107(1) TFEU was infringed and misapplied in that the General Court found that the IMU exemption, which replaced the ICI rules as of 2012, did not constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU.

(1) Commission Decision 2013/284/EU of 19 December 2012 on State aid SA.20829 (C 26/2010, ex NN 43/2010 (ex CP 71/2006)) Scheme concerning the municipal real estate tax exemption granted to real estate used by non-commercial entities for specific purposes implemented by Italy (OJ 2013 L 166, p. 24).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
3.

Consequently, must not Article 53 of Directive 2013/36/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (text with EEA relevance), and the provisions of national law that reflect it, be reconciled with the remaining rules and principles of European law, as set out in the first question, to the effect that access may be granted, where requested after the banking institution has been placed in compulsory liquidation, including where the request for access is not made exclusively in the context of civil or commercial proceedings that have actually been brought to protect the financial interests that have been prejudiced because the banking institution has been placed in compulsory liquidation, but also where the request is addressed to a judicial body authorised by the national State to safeguard the right of access and transparency, specifically in order to determine the actual possibility of bringing such civil or commercial proceedings, before they are in fact instituted, with a view to protecting in full the rights of defence and the right to bring proceedings, with specific reference to the request of a saver who has already suffered the effects of burden sharing in connection with the winding up of the credit institution with which he deposited his savings?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/22

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 14 November 2016 — INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-572/16)

(2017/C 053/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: INEOS Köln GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Question referred

Do the provisions of Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1) and the provisions of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC (2) preclude legislation enacted by a Member State which, for the 2013-2020 trading period, prescribes a mandatory substantive time limit applicable to out-of-time applications for the allocation of free emissions allowances to existing installations, thereby making it impossible to correct errors or to supplement (incomplete) data in the allocation application in cases where such shortcomings are not established until after the time limit laid down by the Member State has expired?

(1) OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.

(2) OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/6

Appeal brought on 12 May 2016 by Tayto Group Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 24 February 2016 in Case T-816/14: Tayto Group v EUIPO — MIP Metro (REAL HAND COOKED)

(Case C-272/16 P)

(2017/C 078/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Tayto Group Ltd (represented by: R. Kunze, Solicitor, G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG

By order of 27 October 2016 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/9

Appeal brought on 8 December 2016 by Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-564/15: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV v European Commission

(Case C-635/16 P)

(2017/C 070/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV (represented by: Y. de Vries, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the order of the General Court of 11 October 2016 in case T-564/15;

— refer the case back to the General Court;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law by finding that the action is inadmissible, given that it is directed against the Commission, who is not the author of the contested act;

The General Court erred in law by finding that the action was inadmissible because the contested act is merely provisional in nature and therefore is not a definitive act;

The General Court erred in law by rejecting Spliethoff’s request to treat its action for annulment as if it were directed against the 31 July Decision (1).

(1) Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 5274 final establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)-Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 11 September 2014 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 95/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 5 December 2016 — Kreuzmayr GmbH

(Case C-628/16)

(2017/C 095/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kreuzmayr GmbH

Questions referred

Question 1:

In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which a taxable person X1 has at its disposal goods stored in Member State A and has sold those goods to a taxable person X2, and X2 has expressed to X1 its intention to transport the goods to Member State B, and X2 has presented to X1 its VAT identification number issued by Member State B,

and X2 has sold those goods on to a taxable person X3 and X2 has agreed with X3 that X3 will arrange or carry out the transport of the goods from Member State A to Member State B and X3 has arranged or carried out the transport of the goods from Member State A to Member State B and X3 was already entitled to dispose of the goods as owner in Member State A,

and X2 has not, however, informed X1 that he has already sold on the goods before they leave Member State A,

and X1 also could not know that X2 would not be arranging or carrying out the transport of the goods from Member State A to Member State B,

is EU law to be interpreted as meaning that the place of supply from X1 to X2 is determined in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 32 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and that the supply from X1 to X2 is thus the intra-Community (the so-called ‘active’) supply (bewegte Lieferung)?

Question 2:

If Question 1 must be answered in the negative, is EU law then to be interpreted as meaning that X3 may nevertheless deduct as input VAT an amount of VAT of Member State B invoiced to it by X2, provided that X3 uses the goods purchased for purposes of its transactions taxed in Member State B and no wrongful exercise of the right of deduction of input VAT can be imputed to X3?

Question 3:

If Question 1 must be answered in the affirmative and X1 subsequently learns that X3 has arranged the transport and was already entitled to dispose of the goods as owner in Member State A, is EU law then to be interpreted as meaning that the supply from X1 to X2 retrospectively loses its status as the intra-Community supply (that it is thus to be viewed retrospectively as a so-called ‘passive’ supply (ruhende Lieferung))?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
2.

Are the Member States, taking into account the fact that the chargeability of tax and the right of deduction arise at the same time, in accordance with Article 167 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (2) and the regulatory powers which they enjoy under Article 185(2) and Article 186 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, entitled to make the adjustment of both tax and the deduction of input tax subject to a refund of the payment on account?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/14

Appeal brought on 1 December 2016 by Anikó Pint against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 November 2016 in Case T-660/16 Anikó Pint v European Commission

(Case C-625/16 P)

(2017/C 112/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Anikó Pint (represented by: D. Lazar, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 2 March 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.
2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, on a proper construction of Directive 2006/112 and the principles of proportionality and neutrality, is an indirect assessment method (assessment by means of a court-commissioned expert report), employed by an independent expert and based on the amount of work/labour involved in the construction of buildings as stated in the report, an acceptable and appropriate measure for determining the extent of the right to deduct in a situation where the supply of goods (building material) and the provision of services (labour relating to the construction of buildings) originate from taxable persons liable to VAT?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/8

Appeal brought on 28 November 2016 by Anastasia-Soultana Gaki against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) made on 19 September 2016 in Case T-112/16, Gaki v Parliament

(Case C-610/16 P)

(2017/C 195/12)

Language of the Case: German

Parties

Appellant: Anastasia-Soultana Gaki (represented by: G. Keisers, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

By order of 6 April 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Elliot International Lp and Others v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

(Case C-658/16)

(2017/C 121/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Elliot International Lp, The Liverpool Limited Partnership, Elliot Associates L.P.

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Question referred

Is the proper application of the first and second subparagraphs of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, (1) in the light of the general principles laid down in Article 3(1) thereof, and in the light of the proper application of the general principles relating to the protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality, reasonableness, transparency and non-discrimination, prevented by a provision of national law such as Article 106(3)(d)(2) of Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 (consolidating all provisions in the field of financial intermediation within the meaning of Articles 8 and 21 of Law No 52 of 6 February 1996), as subsequently amended, and Article 47 octies of the Decision of the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa — Consob No 11971 of 14 May 1999 (Order implementing Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 laying down rules applicable to offerees), as subsequently amended, in so far as those provisions, in authorising Consob to increase the price of the takeover bid as referred to in Article 106 where collusion is found to have taken place between the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it, on the one hand, and one or more sellers, on the other hand, simply refer to the criterion of the ‘price ascertained’ without specifying the parameters and criteria for such a finding?

(1) OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12.
1.

Must the expression ‘the contribution basis in Spain which is closest in time to the reference periods’, referred to in Annex XI(G)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, be interpreted as excluding those contribution bases arising from the application of Spanish domestic legislation (1) under which a migrant worker who has returned to Spain and whose actual final Spanish contributions are higher than the minimum bases may conclude an agreement maintaining the contributions in accordance only with the minimum bases, whereas, if he were a non-migrant worker, he could have concluded such an agreement on higher bases?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/15

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 16 January 2017 — Grenville Hampshire v The Board of the Pension Protection Fund

(Case C-17/17)

(2017/C 078/21)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grenville Hampshire

Defendant: The Board of the Pension Protection Fund

Questions referred

1. Does Article 8 of Directive 80/987/EEC (1) (now superseded by Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC (2)) require member states to ensure that every individual employee receives at least 50 % of the value of his accrued entitlement to old-age benefits in the event that his employer becomes insolvent (with the sole exception of cases of abuse, to which Article 10(a) of that Directive applies)?

2. Alternatively, subject to the findings of the national courts regarding the facts of the case, is it sufficient under Article 8 of Directive 80/987/EEC for a member state to have a system of protection where employees usually receive more than 50 % of the value of their accrued entitlement to old-age benefits but some individual employees receive less than 50 % by virtue of: (i) a financial cap on the amount of compensation paid to employees (in particular employees who have not reached their pension scheme’s normal pension age at the time of the employer’s insolvency); and/or (ii) rules limiting the annual increases in the compensation paid to employees or the annual revaluation of their entitlements prior to pension age?

3. Is Article 8 of Directive 80/987/EEC directly effective in the circumstances of the present case?

(1) Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980, L 283, p. 23).

(2) Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 2008, L 283, p. 36).
3.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative: are Articles 76, 78 and 81 of [Commission] Implementing Regulation [No 555/2008] of 27 June 2008 compatible with the principle of the inviolability of the home as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
1.1.

Is European Union law, in particular Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC, (1) in conjunction with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a remuneration system which (in relation to the accreditation of previous service periods completed before the age of 18) discriminates on grounds of age is replaced by a new remuneration system, under which, however, the transition of existing public servants to the new remuneration system occurs in such a way that the new system is implemented retroactively to the date on which the original law entered into force, but the initial grading in the new remuneration system is based on the salary actually paid under the old remuneration system for a specific transition month (February 2015), with the result that the previously existing age discrimination continues in terms of its financial effects?
1.

Is clause 5, point 1, of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is attached as an Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation allowing the parties to an employment contract, without additional requirements, to agree during the employment relationship indefinitely to postpone the agreed termination of the relationship upon the worker reaching the normal retirement age, including on more than one occasion if necessary, simply because the worker has a right to a retirement pension upon reaching the normal retirement age?