ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/19

Appeal brought on 11 May 2017 by Bank Tejarat against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2017 in Case T-346/15: Bank Tejarat v Council

(Case C-248/17 P)

(2017/C 249/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Bank Tejarat (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, A. Meskarian, Solicitors, M. Brindle QC, T. Otty, R. Blakeley, Barristers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— allow this appeal and set aside paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Court's order contained in the second judgment;

— allow the Bank's re-listing application;

— annul the contested measures insofar as they apply to the Bank; and

— order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law in that it wrongly attributed no and/or insufficient weight to the evidence adduced by the Bank and thereby distorted the key evidence relevant to the question as to whether the allegations in the contested reasons were substantiated by the Council.

Regardless of the outcome of the first ground of appeal, the General Court erred in law in that it distorted the key evidence relevant to the question as to whether the allegations in the contested reasons were substantiated by the Council and/or erroneously placed the burden of proof of the Bank.

In respect of both the first and second grounds of appeal, had the General Court applied the correct principles and/or had it not distorted the evidence referred to above, it would have annulled the contested measures.

The General Court erred in law in holding that the Council was entitled to re-list the Bank on the basis of reasons that could and should have been advanced prior to the first judgment and that the Council’s conduct did not violate Article 266 TFEU as well as the principles of res judicata and/or legal certainty and/or finality and/or effectiveness and/or the right to effective judicial protection and/or the Bank’s rights under Article 47 of the EU Charter and/or under Article 6 and Article 13 ECHR and/or its rights to good administration and/or the principle of proportionality.
1.

Is Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (1) of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings to be interpreted as meaning that the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened to hear and determine an action to set a transaction aside by virtue of the debtor’s insolvency which has been brought against a defendant whose registered office or habitual residence is in another Member State is exclusive, or, in the case of Article 18(2) of that regulation, is the liquidator empowered to bring an action to set aside before a court in the Member State within the territory of which the defendant has his registered office or habitual residence, where the action to set aside brought by the liquidator is based on a disposal of moveable assets carried out in the other Member State?
3.

Thirdly, the General Court infringed the obligation to state reasons. More precisely, the General Court did not deal with the obligation to declare excess stocks of sugar as at 1 May 2004, so that the General Court’s conclusion that the failure to publish Regulation No 60/2004 in the Official Journal in Estonian in due time did not prevent the Republic of Estonia from relying on national law to charge operators the levy on the non-elimination of excess sugar stocks is not comprehensible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích (Czech Republic) lodged on 19 May 2017 — Česká pojišťovna a.s. v WCZ, spol. s r.o.

(Case C-287/17)

(2017/C 269/05)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Česká pojišťovna a.s.

Defendant: WCZ, spol. s r.o.

Question referred

Must Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2011/7/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating late payment in commercial transactions be interpreted as requiring the court to award a successful applicant in a dispute concerning the recovery of a debt under a commercial transaction defined in Article 3 or 4 of that directive the sum of EUR 40 (or the equivalent in national currency) as well as compensation for costs of the court proceedings, including compensation for costs of a reminder to the defendant before the bringing of the action, in the amount laid down by the procedural provisions of the Member State?

(1) OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Marle Participations SARL v Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-320/17)

(2017/C 269/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État (Council of State, France)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marle Participations SARL

Defendant: Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances

Question referred

The Court of Justice is asked to rule on the question as to whether — and, if so, under what conditions — the letting of buildings by a holding company to a subsidiary constitutes a direct or indirect involvement in the management of that subsidiary the effect of which being that the acquisition and holding of shares in that subsidiary are considered economic activities within the meaning of the Directive of 28 November 2006 (1) on the common system of value added tax.

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Does Article 2 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) (‘the Directive’) preclude the maintenance in being of the new legal position created by an administrative decision that has become final under national law, in the area of law governing disciplinary action in the civil service (disciplinary decision), compulsorily retiring and reducing the pension benefits of a civil servant, where

that administrative decision was not yet subject to provisions of EU law, in particular the Directive, at the time when it was adopted, but

a (notional) decision to the same effect would infringe the Directive if it were adopted within the temporal scope of the Directive?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 5 April 2017 — Demarchi Gino S.a.s. v Ministero della Giustizia

(Case C-177/17)

(2017/C 277/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Demarchi Gino S.a.s.

Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia

Question referred

Does the principle that everyone is entitled to a hearing by an impartial tribunal within a reasonable time, affirmed in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which has become a principle of European Union law by virtue of Article 6(3) TEU, read in conjunction with the principle arising from Article 67 TFEU, according to which the Union is to constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights, and the principle arising from Articles 81 and 82 TFEU, according to which, in civil and criminal matters having cross-border implications, the Union is to develop judicial cooperation based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and of decisions in extrajudicial cases, preclude national provisions, such as the Italian provisions contained in Article 5 sexies of Law No 89/2001, which impose on persons entitled to the payment by the Italian State of ‘fair compensation’ in respect of the unreasonable duration of legal proceedings a series of obligations which they must fulfil in order to obtain such payment, and to await the expiry of the period referred to in Article 5 sexies (5) of Law No 89/2001 without, in the meanwhile, being entitled to take any legal action for enforcement and without subsequently being able to claim damages in respect of late payment, even in cases in which the ‘fair compensation’ has been awarded in respect of the unreasonable duration of civil proceedings which have cross-border implications or which involve a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of the European Union and/or a matter in relation to which the European Union provides for the reciprocal recognition of judgments?
4.

As the substance in question was transported across the frontier without notification, the transport is to be regarded as an ‘illegal shipment’ under Article 2(35)(a) of the Waste Shipments Regulation. In that case, the competent authority of dispatch is to obtain information by an appropriate procedure to ensure that the waste in question is taken back in accordance with Article 24(2) of the regulation, which the Czech Republic unjustifiably refuses to do. That obligation is not precluded by Article 128 of REACH, which guarantees the free movement of substances, mixtures or articles within the meaning of Article 3 of REACH, since waste is expressly excluded from the scope of that regulation (see Article 2(2) of REACH).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/24

Appeal brought on 13 June 2017 by Equipolymers Srl, M&G Polimeri Italia SpA, Novapet SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 April 2017 in Case T-422/13: Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME) and Others v Council of the European Union

(Case C-363/17 P)

(2017/C 283/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Equipolymers Srl, M&G Polimeri Italia SpA, Novapet SA (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME), Cepsa Química SA, Indorama Ventures Poland sp. z o.o., Lotte Chemical UK Ltd, Ottana Polimeri Srl, UAB Indorama Polymers Europe, UAB Neo Group, UAB Orion Global pet, Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;

— set aside the General Court's judgment in so far as it dismisses the claim for compensation of damages;

— rule on the substance of the claim for compensation of damages and award the appellants the damages claimed, or refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for Damages; and

— order the Council to pay the appellants' costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court distorted and wrongly presented the evidence submitted by the Appellants when finding that there is no causal link between the unlawful adoption of Decision 2013/226 (1) and the damages incurred by the Appellants. (Contested Judgment, paragraphs 155 to 197, and in particular paragraphs 187 to 189).

(1) Council Implementing Decision 2013/226/EU of 21 May 2013 rejecting the proposal for a Council implementing regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and terminating the expiry review proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Indonesia and Malaysia, in so far as the proposal would impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand (OJ 2013, L 136, p. 12).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 300/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 15 May 2017 — Ramazan Dündar and Others v Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG

(Case C-253/17)

(2017/C 300/16)

Language of the case: Germany

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ramazan Dündar, Carolin Wenzel, Antonia Genovese, Jan-Maximilian Mügge

Defendant: Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG

By order of 20 June 2017, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Union removed the case from the Court’s Register.
2.

If it is assumed that the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface is a project, and in the event that it was carried out lawfully before Article 6(3) of … Directive 92/43/EEC … became applicable to a Natura 2000 site, and that it is still being carried out, must it then be assessed to be one and the same project, even if the fertilising did not always take place on the same tracts of land, in the same quantities and using the same techniques? Is it relevant, for the purposes of the assessment of whether this constitutes one and the same project, that the nitrogen deposition caused by the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface did not increase after Article 6(3) of … Directive 92/43/EEC … became applicable to the Natura 2000 site?
1.

Is Article 2(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) on the common system of value added tax, to be interpreted as meaning that demolition services carried out by a company whose business includes the supply of demolition services, is one single transaction where, under the terms of the contract between the it and the client, the demolition company is required to remove the demolition waste and where the demolition company may, if the demolition waste contains metal scrap, sell it to companies which buy recyclable scrap metal? Or, taking into account Article 2(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 14 (1) of the Directive 2006/112/EC, is such a contract for demolition services to be interpreted as comprising two transactions: first, a supply of services by the demolition company to the client of demolition services and, second, the purchase of the metal scrap metal from the client for resale by the demolition company? In the present case is it important when fixing the price for the demolition services that the demolition company took into account, as a factor moderating the price, that it is also possible to generate revenues by making use of demolition waste? In the present case, is it important that the quantity and value of the recoverable demolition waste have not been agreed upon in the demolition contract, or that it has not been agreed that that information will be notified later to the client for which the demolition work is carried out, or the fact that the quantity and the value of the demolition waste are known only when the demolition company sells it?
2.

If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, do Articles 11 and 21(3) of Directive 2001/83 or any other provisions of EU law preclude the competent authority from making public, by means of an authorisation granted under Article 6 in conjunction with Article 10 of Directive 2001/83, the Summary of Product Characteristics and the package leaflet, including those parts which refer to indications or dosage forms which fall under the patent rights of a third party, in a situation where the marketing authorisation applicant or holder has notified the authority that he is not including in the Summary of Product Characteristics and the package leaflet those parts of the Summary of Product Characteristics for the reference medicine which refer to indications or dosage forms covered by the patent right of a third party?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 330/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Torino (Italy) lodged on 9 June 2017 — IJDF Italy Srl v Violeta Fernando Dionisio, Alex Del Rosario Fernando

(Case C-344/17)

(2017/C 330/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Torino

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IJDF Italy Srl

Defendants: Violeta Fernando Dionisio, Alex Del Rosario Fernando

Question referred

Must Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) the second sentence of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a national law that, when cases are related, in particular when there is a guarantee claim related to the original proceedings, provides that the cases are to be determined together before the same court, even though as a result of that provision jurisdiction in respect of the guarantee claim lies with a court other than that within whose jurisdiction the consumer resides or other than that of his address for service?

(1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
1.

Does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) preclude the application of national legislation which, in transposition of the power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, which is more extensive than that conferred in the directive that preceded it, provides that an application for international protection is inadmissible if the applicant has been granted subsidiary protection in another Member State, in so far as the national legislation, in the absence of any national transitional provisions, is applicable even to applications lodged before 20 July 2015? Is that in any event the case if, in accordance with Article 49 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, the asylum application still falls entirely within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 343/2003?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 31 July 2017 —Valériane SNC v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publiques

(Case C-460/17)

(2017/C 347/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Valériane SNC

Respondent: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publiques

Question referred

Must the provisions of Article 17 of the Sixth VAT Directive of 17 May 1977, (1) which have, in essence, been reproduced in Article 168 of Directive [2006/112/EC] of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (2) be interpreted as meaning that, in order to refuse a taxable person the right to deduct, from the value added tax that he is liable to pay by reason of his own transactions, tax levied on invoices corresponding to goods or services that the tax authorities establish have not actually been supplied to the taxable person, it is necessary, in all cases, to examine whether it has been established that that taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction was connected with value-added-tax fraud, regardless of whether that fraud was committed on the initiative of the issuer of the invoice, its recipient or a third party?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

(2) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 357/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 8 August 2017 — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank v D. Balandin and Others

(Case C-477/17)

(2017/C 357/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank

Defendant: D. Balandin, I. Lukachenko, Holiday on Ice Services B.V.

Question referred

Must Article 1 of Regulation No 1231/2010 (1) be interpreted as meaning that third-country nationals, who live outside the European Union, but who work in various Member States on a temporary basis for an employer who is established in the Netherlands, may invoke (Title II of) Regulation No 883/2004 (2) and Regulation No 987/2009 (3)?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these Regulations solely on the ground of their nationality (OJ 2010 L 344, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

(3) Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2017 — Criminal proceedings against MAD Srl

(Case C-489/17)

(2017/C 374/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Party to the main proceedings

MAD Srl

Questions referred

1. Must the Annex to Decision 2014/955/EU (1) and Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 (2) be interpreted, with reference to the classification of waste to which mirror codes have been assigned, as meaning that the producer of the waste must, when the composition of the waste is not known, carry out a prior classification of it, and, if so, within what limits?

2. Must the examination as to hazardous substances be carried out on the basis of uniform, predetermined methods?

3. Must the examination as to hazardous substances be based on a precise and representative verification that takes into account the composition of the waste, if this is already known or has been identified during the classification phase, or may the examination as to hazardous substances instead be carried out according to criteria of probability by taking into consideration which hazardous substances might reasonably be present in the waste?

4. Where there is doubt, or where it is impossible to establish with certainty whether or not hazardous substances are present in the waste, must that waste nevertheless be classified and treated as hazardous waste in application of the precautionary principle?

(1) 2014/955/EU: Commission Decision of 18 December 2014 amending Decision 2000/532/EC on the list of waste pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 370, p. 44).

(2) Commission Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 of 18 December 2014 replacing Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2014 L 365, p. 89).