ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/27

Appeal brought on 7 December 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2015 in Case T-674/11 TV2/Danmark A/S v European Commission

(Case C-656/15 P)

(2016/C 048/32)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: ved B. Stromsky, T. Maxian Rusche and L. Grønfeldt, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: TV2/Danmark A/S, Kingdom of Denmark, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd

Form of order sought

Set aside the judgment of the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2015 in Case T-674/11 TV2/Danmark A/S v European Commission, in so far as it annuls Commission Decision 2011/839/EU of 20 April 2011 concerning Danish measures (C 2/03) in favour of TV2/Danmark (1) in so far as that decision finds that advertising revenue from 1995 and 1996 constitutes State aid.

Dismiss the third alternative claim of the applicant at first instance on its merits.

Order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court erred by misinterpreting the concept of ‘State resources’ in Article 107(1) TFEU, including the concept of ‘control’, and in failing to provide a proper statement of reasons.

The essential points of the appellant’s arguments put forward in support of its appeal are as follows:

— The General Court erred in paragraphs 210 and 211 by failing to recognise that TV2 Reklame’s resources are State resources because TV2 Reklame is a State-owned company; the General Court applied an overly narrow interpretation of the case-law concerning the concept of State resources from State-owned businesses.

— The General Court erred in law by applying an overly narrow interpretation of the concept of ‘control’ in its assessment of the State’s control over TV2 Reklame’s resources. Similarly, it erred in paragraph 215 by also interpreting too narrowly the concept of ‘control’ in its assessment of the State’s control of the resources in the TV2 Fund.

— The General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the judgment in PreussenElektra, C-379/98, ECLI:EU:C:2001:160. That misinterpretation plays a central role in the general Court’s reasons for annulling the contested decision.

(1) OJ 2011 L 340, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola (Croatia) lodged on 23 October 2015 — Pula Parking d.o.o. v Sven Kalus Tederahn

(Case C-551/15)

(2016/C 048/16)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Puli-Pola

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pula Parking d.o.o.

Defendant: Sven Kalus Tederahn

Questions referred

1. Taking into account the legal nature of the relationship between the parties to the proceedings, is Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) applicable in the present case?

2. Does Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 relate also to the jurisdiction of notaries in the Republic of Croatia?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).
1.

Is the fact that the activity of the staff specifically responsible for inspections in the veterinary health sector is intrinsically linked to the continuation of the activity of the type of establishments mentioned in paragraph [5] [of the order for reference] sufficient grounds for the repeated conclusion of fixed-term contracts, by way of derogation from the general rule adopted in order to transpose Directive 70/1999? (1)
1.

Is the United Kingdom entitled, pursuant to the final paragraph of article 133 PVD (1), to impose the condition contained in paragraph (d) of that article on bodies governed by public law, (i) in circumstances where the relevant transactions were treated by the United Kingdom as taxable on 1st January 1989, but other Sporting Services were subject to exemption on that date and (ii) in circumstances where the relevant transactions had not first been granted exemption under national law before the United Kingdom sought to impose the condition contained in Article 133(d)?
2.

If, on the basis of the interpretation given by the Court in response to the first question, the right to send an applicant to a safe third country may also be exercised after a transfer carried out pursuant to the Dublin procedure: Can Article 3(3) of the Dublin III Regulation be interpreted as meaning that Member States may also exercise that right if, in the course of the Dublin procedure, the Member State carrying out the transfer has not been informed of the precise national rules governing the exercise of that right or of the practice applied by the national authorities?
1.

Does the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238 (‘Digital Rights Ireland’) (including, in particular, paragraphs 60 to 62 thereof) lay down mandatory requirements of EU law applicable to a Member State's domestic regime governing access to data retained in accordance with national legislation, in order to comply with Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter (‘the EU Charter’)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/14

Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by Harper Hygienics S.A. against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 13 May 2015 in Case T-363/12 Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC natural beauty)

(Case C-374/15 P)

(2016/C 145/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Harper Hygienics S.A. (represented by: D. Rzążewska)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Clinique Laboratories, LLC

By order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 the appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/2

Appeal brought on 21 July 2015 by Shoe Branding Europe BVBA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 May 2015 in Case T-145/14: adidas AG/Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-396/15 P)

(2016/C 118/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: adidas AG, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

By order of 17 February 2016 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/8

Appeal brought on 1 December 2015 by Gat Microencapsulation GmbH (anciennement Gat Microencapsulation AG) against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2015 in Case T-720/13: Gat Microencapsulation v EUIPO

(Case C-639/15 P)

(2016/C 314/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Gat Microencapsulation GmbH (anciennement Gat Microencapsulation AG) (represented by: S. Soler Lerma, Agent, M. C. March Cabrelles, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 26 May 2016 the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/15

Appeal brought on 18 November 2015 by Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2015 in Case T-453/14 Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság v European Parliament

(Case C-607/15 P)

(2016/C 243/15)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság (represented by: D. Sobor, ügyvéd)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

By order of 4 May 2016, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the costs.
3.

Must the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 9 March 1978 in Case [106/77] Simmenthal (3) be interpreted as meaning that, in order to attain the objective of Directive 93/13/EEC, cited in the first question referred, in the light of Articles 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, a national court must not apply a provision of national law, like Article 1535 of the Spanish Civil Code, which precludes the exercise of the right to extinguish disputed debts in the same proceedings as those for enforcement of the debt assigned, thereby imposing on the consumer the burden of commencing fresh declaratory proceedings, within the limitation period of nine days from notification of the assignment, together with the costs which that entails (lawyer, court agent, legal fees, determination of the court having jurisdiction when the assignee is not domiciled in Spain …), against the new holder of the debt assigned in order to extinguish that debt?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 January 2016 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA ‘Veloserviss’

(Case C-47/16)

(2016/C 111/18)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant: SIA ‘Veloserviss’

Questions referred

Should the importer’s obligation to act in good faith, laid down in Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, be defined as meaning that:

(a) it includes an obligation on the importer to verify the circumstances in which the Form A certificate granted to the exporter was issued (certificates regarding the parts which constitute the goods, the role of the exporter in the manufacture of the goods, etc.)?

(b) the importer acted in bad faith for no other reason than that the exporter acted in bad faith (for example, where the exporter failed to reveal the true origin of the costs, the value of the parts which constitute the goods, etc., to the customs authorities of the exporting country)?

(c) the obligation to act in good faith has not been fulfilled for no other reason than that the exporter submitted incorrect information to the customs authorities of the exporting country, and that is so even where the customs authorities themselves committed errors in issuing the certificate?

May the importer’s obligation to act in good faith, laid down in Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be deemed to be sufficiently proved by virtue of the general description of the situation set out in the communication from OLAF and by virtue of OLAF’s findings, or should the national customs authorities nevertheless obtain additional evidence regarding the conduct of the exporter?

(1) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 136/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 12 February 2016 — ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine v Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie

(Case C-80/16)

(2016/C 136/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Montreuil

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine

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

Questions referred

1. In its Decision 2011/278/EU (1), did the European Commission, by excluding emissions from recycled waste gases used in the production of electricity from the benchmark value for hot metal, contravene Article 10a(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2) concerning the rules for establishing ex-ante benchmarks, and in particular the objective of efficient energy recovery of waste gases and the option of allocating allowances free of charge in the case of electricity produced from waste gases?

2. By basing its determination of the benchmark for hot metal in that decision on the data in the iron and steel ‘BREF’ and the ‘LDSD 2007’, did the Commission infringe the obligation to use the most exact and up-to-date scientific data available and/or the principle of sound administration?

3. In Decision 2011/278/EU, is the European Commission’s inclusion, if proven, of a factory producing both sintered ore and pellets in the reference installations for determining the benchmark for sintered ore such as to vitiate the value of that benchmark on grounds of illegality?

4. Did the Commission, by failing to state specifically the reasons for proceeding in that way in Decision 2011/278/EU, infringe the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

(1) Commission Decision 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 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

(2) 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 (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).
2.

If so: – a. how should those autonomous concepts generally be interpreted; and – b. does a case such as the present, which is characterised by the facts that: — according to the EAW [European arrest warrant], the summons was served, at the address of the requested person, on an adult resident of the household, who undertook to hand the summons over to the requested person; — it is not clear from the EAW whether and when that resident actually handed the summons over to the requested person; — it cannot be inferred from the statement which the requested person made at the hearing before the referring court that he was — in due time — aware of the date and place of the scheduled trial, fall under one of those two autonomous concepts?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/14

Appeal brought on 11 January 2016 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 October 2015 in Case T-721/14 Kingdom of Belgium v European Commission

(Case C-16/16 P)

(2016/C 145/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, M. Jacobs and J. Van Holm, acting as Agents, and P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the order of the General Court in Case T-721/14 in its entirety;

— declare the action for annulment to be admissible;

— rule on the merits;

— declare the applications to intervene lodged by the Hellenic Republic and the Portuguese Republic to be admissible; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

First ground of appeal: infringement of the principles of allocation of powers, loyalty and institutional balance, and misapplication of the conditions set out in Article 263 TFEU.

Second ground of appeal: infringement of the reciprocity of the principle of loyalty and undermining of the position of the Member State as a privileged applicant with a view to safeguarding its prerogatives.

Third ground of appeal: incorrect interpretation of the legal consequences of the recommendation with respect to Belgium.
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does Directive 2006/112/EC preclude national rules under which it is sufficient to display the list of registered inactive taxpayers at the headquarters of the Agenției Națională de Administrare Fiscală (National Agency for Fiscal Administration) and to publish that list on the website of that agency, in the section Public information — Information relating to economic operators, in order that the right to deduct VAT in the circumstances described in the first question may be refused?
2.

In particular, in the context of the present case, does the phrase ‘in the normal course of events’ require a tax authority to do no more than to identify the existence of an option to purchase which can be exercised no later than upon payment of the final instalment?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 February 2016 — Lg Costruzioni Srl v Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa — Distretto di Carbonia, Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa

(Case C-110/16)

(2016/C 175/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Lg Costruzioni Srl

Respondent: Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa — Distretto di Carbonia, Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa

Questions referred

Is a provision such as that in Article 53(3) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 16 April 2006, which allows participation by an undertaking with a ‘named’ design engineer who, since he is not himself a tenderer, may not, according to national case-law, rely on the capacity of others, compatible with Article 48 of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004? (1)

(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 200/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl v Antonino Bordonaro

(Case C-143/16)

(2016/C 200/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl

Respondent and cross-appellant: Antonino Bordonaro

Question referred

Is the rule of national law set out in Article 34 of Legislative Decree No 276 of 2003, according to which an on-call employment contract may, in any event, be concluded in respect of services provided by persons under 25 years of age, contrary to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age referred to in Directive 2000/78 (1) and Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
1.

Should Article 14(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 (1) restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, as last amended by Council Directive 2004/75/EC of 29 April 2004, (2) be interpreted as meaning that excise duty may not be levied on the supply of energy products in circumstances, such as those in the present case, in which those products are supplied as fuel for a ship to be used in navigation within [European Union] waters with the objective, not involving direct consideration, of sailing that ship under its own power from the place where it was built to a port in another Member State for the purpose of taking on its first commercial cargo?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag (Nederland) lodged on 21 March 2016 — Christian Louboutin, Christian Louboutin SAS v Van Haren Schoenen BV

(Case C-163/16)

(2016/C 211/39)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Christian Louboutin, Christian Louboutin SAS

Defendant: Van Haren Schoenen BV

Question referred

Is the notion of ‘shape’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) (‘Form’, ‘vorm’ and ‘forme’ in the German, Dutch and French language versions of the Trade Marks Directive respectively) limited to the three-dimensional properties of the goods, such as their contours, measurements and volume (expressed three-dimensionally), or does it include other (non three-dimensional) properties of the goods, such as their colour?

(1) Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 7 March 2016 — Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger Reg. Gen. mbH (AKM) v Zürs.net Betriebs GmbH

(Case C-138/16)

(2016/C 222/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger Reg. Gen. mbH (AKM)

Defendant: Zürs.net Betriebs GmbH

Question referred

Are Article 3(1) or Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (1) and Article 11bis (1)(ii) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, as revised in Stockholm/Paris in 1967/1971, to be interpreted as meaning that a rule according to which the transmission of broadcasts by ‘communal antenna installations’ such as those of the defendant in the main proceedings

(a) does not constitute a new broadcast when no more than 500 participants are connected to the installation and/or

(b) constitutes part of the original broadcast when it involves the simultaneous, full and unaltered transmission of broadcasts of the Österreichischer Rundfunk (Austrian Broadcasting Corporation) using services within the country (Austria),

and these uses are also not covered by any other exclusive right of communication to the public at a distance within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC, and are therefore not subject to the author’s consent and are also not subject to a fee,

is contrary to EU law or to the law of the Berne Convention as an international agreement which forms part of EU law?

(1) OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.
1.

Are Articles 27 and 32 of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) to be interpreted, in the light of Articles 45 and 49 TFEU, and having regard to the procedural autonomy of the Member States and the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and good administration, as meaning that the withdrawal of a certificate of registration as a European Union citizen, previously granted, under Article 8(1) of [Greek] Decree 106/2007, to a national of another Member State, and the imposition on him of a measure for his removal from the host Member State, is required or permitted in circumstances where, although he had been registered in the national list of undesirable aliens and was the subject of an exclusion order on grounds of public policy and public security, that person again entered the Member State concerned and conducted a business, while failing to observe the procedure laid down in Article 32 of Directive 2004/38 for the submission of an application for the lifting of that exclusion order, when the latter (the exclusion order) was imposed on the self-sufficient ground of public policy which justifies the withdrawal of the certificate of registration of a citizen of a Member State?
1.

With regard to the common flat-rate scheme for farmers which is established by Chapter 2 of Title XII of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112/EC (1), is Article 296(2) to be interpreted as providing an exhaustive regime as to when a Member State is able to exclude a farmer from the common agricultural flat-rate scheme? In particular: 1.1. Is a Member State only able to exclude farmers from the common flat-rate scheme for farmers pursuant to Article 296(2)? 1.2. Is a Member State also able to exclude a farmer from the common flat-rate scheme for farmers using Article 299? 1.3. Does the principle of fiscal neutrality give a Member State a right to exclude a farmer from the common flat-rate scheme for farmers? 1.4. Do Member States have an entitlement to exclude farmers from the common flat-rate scheme for farmers on any other grounds?