ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/6

Appeal brought on 15 January 2014 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2013 in Case T-499/10: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v European Commission

(Case C-15/14 P)

2014/C 61/10

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, K. Talabér-Ritz, agents)

Other party to the proceedings: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2013 in Case T-499/10 MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v European Commission; and

— reject the application to annul Commission Decision C(2010) 3553 final of 9 June 2010 in Case C-1/09 (ex NN-69/2008) on the State aid implemented by Hungary in favour of MOL Nyrt (1);

— order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs; alternatively,

— refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration;

— reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission maintains that the judgment under appeal should be set aside because several aspects of that judgment misinterpret or misapply the concept of selectivity.

First, the judgment misapplies the case-law on selectivity in relation to measures for which the national authorities have discretion on the treatment they accord to undertakings.

Second, the General Court incorrectly states the law in considering that the presence of objective criteria necessarily excludes the presence of selectivity.

Third, the judgment erroneously links the presence of selectivity to the intention of the Member State to shield one or more operators from a new regime of fees and thereby overlooked the requirement that the presence of State aid rests on the effects of the measure under examination.

Fourth, the considerations set out in the judgment regarding the ‘subsequent modification of the conditions external to [an agreement preserving a particular level of fees]’ could not be relevant to the case in hand since the subsequent modification of the conditions external to the agreement examined by the Commission was a change in a legislative regime.

(1) OJ L 34, p. 55.
1.

Does a procedure of a Member State comply with Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) if, under that procedure, in the event of a breach by the consumer of an obligation contained in a document in due form drawn up by a notary, the other party to the contract avoids inter partes proceedings before a court and asserts its claim to the amount it indicates by issuing what is known as an enforcement clause, without any examination being possible of the unfairness of a term of the underlying contract?
4.

First, by adopting the Contested Decision, the Commission infringed the principle of distribution of powers enshrined in Article 13(2) TEU and, consequently, the principle of institutional balance (first plea in law). Under the first limb of that plea, the Council submits that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is a body established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which adopts acts having legal effects and that, consequently, the position to be expressed on behalf of the Union before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea should have been established by the Council in accordance with Article 218(9) TFEU. Under the second limb of the first plea, the Council considers that, in any event, the Commission infringed Article 16(1) TEU by usurping for itself the policy-making functions which, under that Treaty provision, belong to the Council alone.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 February 2014 — Charlotte Rosselle v Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité (INAMI), Union nationale des mutualités libres (UNM Libres)

(Case C-65/14)

2014/C 129/16

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du Travail de Nivelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Charlotte Rosselle

Defendants: Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité (INAMI), Union nationale des mutualités libres (UNM Libres)

Intervener: Institut pour l'Egalité des Femmes et des Hommes (IEFH)

Question referred

Do sections 1 and 2 of title III, chapter III, of the Royal Decree of 3 July 1996 implementing the Law of 14 July 1994 coordinating compulsory medical care and sickness benefit insurance infringe Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (1) and Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (2) in failing to provide for an exemption from the minimum contribution period for a public servant assigned non-active status for personal reasons who is on maternity leave, whereas such an exemption is provided for a public servant who has resigned or has been dismissed?

(1) OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/18

Action brought on 24 January 2014 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-37/14)

2014/C 102/25

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed time-limits, all the measures necessary to recover from the relevant beneficiaries all State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Article 1 of Commission Decision 2009/402/EC of 28 January 2009 on the ‘contingency plans’ in the fruit and vegetable sector implemented by France (1) and by failing to inform the Commission, within the time-limit set, of any measures taken to comply with that decision, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Decision 2009/402/EC;

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Recovery of all State aid declared unlawful had not taken place by the date on which the time-limit for such recovery, as laid down by Decision 2009/402/EC, expired.

On the date on which the present action was brought, the French Republic had still not adopted the measures necessary to recover that aid from the undertakings to which it had been granted, nor had it disclosed to the Commission all the information requested by that institution.

(1) OJ 2009 L 127, p. 11.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/27

Action brought on 10 March 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-116/14)

2014/C 135/32

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Yerrell and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court of Justice shall:

— declare that, by failing to adopt and communicate the necessary guidelines, the Portuguese Republic has not complied with Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/96/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on road infrastructure safety management;

— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 8(1) of Directive 2008/96/EC, Member States must ensure that guidelines, if they do not already exist, are adopted by 19 December 2011, in order to support the competent entities in the application of the directive.

More than two years after the expiry of the deadline for adopting those guidelines, Portugal has still not adopted them.

Under Article 8(2) of Directive 2008/96/EC, Member States must communicate those guidelines to the Commission within three months of their adoption.

As Portugal has not adopted any guidelines, it has failed to comply with the obligation to communicate.

(1) OJ 2008 L 319, p. 59
—

Export refund nomenclature code 0207 12 90 9190, corresponding to what are referred to as ‘65% chickens’ which do not have completely ossified sternum tips, femurs and tibias’, and that the company actually exported spent laying hens (hens slaughtered at the end of their laying period, when their skeleton is completely ossified), is the product ‘spent laying hens’ included in the description of goods ‘Others’, with the product codes ‘0207 12 10 9900’ and ‘0207 12 90 9190’, indicated in Annex I of Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87, (1) amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2319/2002 (2) of 13 December 2002, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2180/2003 (3) of 5 December 2003, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2199/2004 (4) of 10 December 2004 and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2091/2005 (5) of 15 December, relating to the publication, for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, respectively, of the nomenclature of agricultural products for export refunds?’
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 18 December 2013 — ŠKO-ENERGO, s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-43/14)

2014/C 142/11

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ŠKO-ENERGO, s.r.o.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Question referred

Must Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) 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 be interpreted as preventing the application of provisions of national law which make the allocation free of charge of emission allowances in the relevant period subject to gift tax?

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

Does the second sentence of Paragraph 7(1) of Book II of the SGB remain in force until a (possibly) necessary change to the law by the institutions of the Federal Republic of Germany?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/19

Action brought on 27 March 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-145/14)

2014/C 159/25

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Petrova and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that the existing landfill sites in the country could not continue to operate after 16 July 2009 unless they complied with the requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (1), the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of that directive;

— order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the answers to the reasoned opinion (the last answers date from 16 July 2013 and from 10 February 2014) the Bulgarian national authorities admitted that there are to date 100 landfill sites in operation in the Republic of Bulgaria which have not been adapted to the requirements of Article 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC.

The Commission therefore deems it necessary to bring an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union so that the Court declares that the Republic of Bulgaria has infringed that provision.

(1) OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.
2.

Having regard to the provisions of Law No 9/2012 and to the purpose of the tax provided for under that law, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions which is applicable, in the case of all foreign motor vehicles, upon their registration in that Member State, but which, in the case of national motor vehicles, is due only upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, the result being that a foreign vehicle cannot be used unless the tax is paid, but a national vehicle can be used for an unlimited time without the tax being paid, until the ownership of that vehicle is transferred, if such a transfer takes place?
2.

If the first question is answered in the negative: Is European Union law in the area of public procurement, in particular Article 26 of 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 (2) to be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as the third sentence of Paragraph 3(1) of the [Rhineland-Palatinate Land Law on guaranteeing compliance with collective agreements and minimum wages in public contract awards (LTTG)] which provides for the mandatory exclusion of a tender if an economic operator does not, already when submitting the tender, undertake in a separate declaration to do something which he would be contractually obliged to do if awarded the contract even without making that declaration?
—

Declare that, by maintaining rules that deny non-resident taxpayers whose incomes are obtained exclusively or almost exclusively in Belgium (Walloon Region) the benefit of a tax reduction on personal income tax granted to resident taxpayers living in the Walloon Region under the Decree of 3 April 2009 establishing the Caisse d’Investissement de Wallonie and establishing a reduction in personal income tax in the case of subscription of shares or bonds of the Caisse, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 45 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union and under Article 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 14 April 2014 — A v B

(Case C-184/14)

2014/C 194/20

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: A

Cross-appellant: B

Question referred

May the decision on a request for child maintenance raised in the context of proceedings concerning the legal separation of spouses, being ancillary to those proceedings, be taken both by the court before which those separation proceedings are pending and by the court before which proceedings concerning parental responsibility are pending, on the basis of the prevention criterion, or must that decision of necessity be taken only by the latter court, as the two distinct criteria set out in points (c) and (d) of [Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations] (1) are alternatives (in the sense that they are mutually exclusive)?

(1) OJ 2009 L 7, p. 1.
5.

Further, there was signed a collective agreement and there were adopted Laws 37542009 and 3868/2010 which incorporated provisions of that collective agreement. The national law continues not to define an effective upper limit of time up to which it is possible for the workers concerned to be compelled to work, in that, in addition to regular duties, it is provided that ‘the hospital doctors of the National Health Service, the university doctors and trainee doctors shall carry out the on-call duties required to ensure the safe operation of the hospitals and health centres’.
2.

Is an entity established as a limited company, with exclusively public capital and 100 % owned by the Autonomous Region of the Azores, and whose object is the exercise of consultancy and management activities in matters relating to the Regional Health System, with the purpose of developing and reorganising it, through the performance of programme agreements concluded with the Autonomous Region of the Azores, which holds, by delegation, the public-authority powers conferred in those matters on the Autonomous Region, which was originally responsible for providing the public health service, covered by the concept of a body governed by public law acting as a public authority for the purpose of the first paragraph of Article 13(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006?
1.

(a) Can the term ‘integration measures’ — contained in Article 7(2) of … Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, [p. 12] ) … — be interpreted as meaning that the competent authorities of the Member States may require a member of a sponsor’s family to demonstrate that he or she has knowledge of the official language of the Member State concerned at a level corresponding to level A1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, as well as a basic knowledge of the society of that Member State, before those authorities authorise that family member’s entry and residence? (b) Is it relevant to the answer to that question that, also in the context of the proportionality test as described in the European Commission’s Green Paper of 15 November 2011 (1) on the right to family reunification [of third-country nationals living in the European Union], the national legislation containing the requirement referred to in Question 1(a) provides that, leaving aside the case in which the family member has shown that, due to a mental or physical disability, he/she is permanently unable to take the civic integration examination, it is only in the case where there is a combination of very special individual circumstances which justifies the assumption that the family member will be permanently unable to comply with the integration measures that the request for authorisation of entry and residence cannot be rejected?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial Navarra (Spain) lodged on 25 April 2014 — Antonia Valdivia Reche v Banco de Valencia, S.A.

(Case C-208/14)

2014/C 223/08

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial Navarra

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Antonia Valdivia Reche

Respondent: Banco de Valencia, S.A.

Question referred

Does Article 6 of Directive 93/13 (1) require the national court, when it has found a term setting a rate of 29 % for default interest to be unfair, to declare that term ineffective, without any scope for reducing the rate of interest agreed, even though such a reduction has been expressly requested by one of the consumers against whom proceedings have been brought?

(1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/18

Action brought on 24 April 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-205/14)

2014/C 212/20

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra Andrade and F. Wilman, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by failing to ensure the operational and financial independence of the body responsible for coordinating the allocation of slots, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93; (1)

— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In Portugal, the body responsible for coordinating the allocation of slots is the ANA, a private commercial company which manages airports, and therefore does not satisfy the requirements relating to independence laid down in Regulation No 95/93.

Since the Divisão de Coordenação Nacional de Slots forms an integral part of the ANA and is entirely dependant on the ANA, there is neither a situation of operational independence nor one of financial independence, contrary to what is required under EU law.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports (OJ 1993 L 14, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/10

Action brought on 13 May 2014 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-238/14)

2014/C 235/14

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and D, Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by maintaining in force derogations from the measures aimed at preventing abuse of successive fixed-term contracts concluded with occasional entertainment workers, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Clause 5 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (1);

— order Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By maintaining in force derogations from the measures aimed at preventing abuse of successive fixed-term contracts concluded with occasional entertainment workers, Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Clause 5 of the framework agreement.

The Commission considers that, for that category of workers, Luxembourg law does not provide for any objective reason allowing for the prevention of abuse of successive fixed-term contracts, contrary to Clause 5(1)(a) of the Annex to the framework agreement in question.

(1) OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.
1.

In order to establish that a trade mark has acquired distinctive character following the use that had been made of it within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1), is it sufficient for the applicant for registration to prove that at the relevant date a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons recognise the mark and associate it with the applicant’s goods in the sense that, if they were to consider who marketed goods bearing that mark, they would identify the applicant; or must the applicant prove that a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons rely upon the mark (as opposed to any other trade marks which may also be present) as indicating the origin of the goods?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/18

Action brought on 20 May 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-244/14)

2014/C 253/23

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2004/49/EC in so far as it failed to fully to transpose Articles 3(k), 10(5), 11(2), 17(1), 19(2), 22(3) and 25(3) of that directive;

— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following an examination of the legal position in the Republic of Austria, the Commission expressed concerns regarding the correct transposition of some of the provisions of Directive 2004/49/EC (1). The concerns relate essentially to provisions concerning safety certification and safety authorisation, national safety authorities, investigations, the investigation body and safety recommendations.

(1) OJ 2004 L 164, p. 44.