ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/6

Appeal brought on 5 May 2014 by Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2014 in Case T-256/11: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar v Council of the European Union

(Case C-220/14 P)

2014/C 235/09

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar (represented by: I. Burton, J. Binns, Solicitors, J. Lewis QC, B. Kennelly, J. Pobjoy, Barristers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union,

European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2014, in Case T-256/11;

— Annul Decision 2011/172/CFSP (1) of 21 March 2011 and Regulation No 270/2011 (2) of 21 March 2011, in so far as those acts apply to the Appellants;

— Order that the Council pay the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court; and

— Take any other measures that this Court considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 20 May 2011, the Appellants applied to the General Court to annul the Decision and the Regulation in so far as those acts apply to the Appellants (‘Application’). The General Court rejected that Application. The Appellants maintained that, in doing so, the General Court erred in law for the following reasons:

1) First Plea: The General Court erred in finding that the Decision was lawfully adopted on the basis of Article 29 TEU.

2) Second Plea: The General Court erred in finding that the Ground for imposing restrictive measures against each of the Appellants was substantiated and/or satisfied the legal criteria for listing set out in Article 1(1) of the Decision and Article 2(1) of the Regulation.

3) Third Plea: The General Court erred in its finding that the Council had complied with its obligation to state reasons.

4) Fourth Plea: The General Court erred in its examination of the Appellant’s pleas in respect of infringement of the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

5) Fifth Plea: The General Court erred in finding that the interference with the Appellants’ property and/or freedom to conduct a business was proportionate.

6) Sixth Plea: The General Court erred in finding that there was no ‘manifest error of assessment’ by the Council.

(1) OJ L 76, p. 63

(2) OJ L 76, p. 4
1.

Are Article 2(1)(a) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents (1), Article 3(c) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators (2), and Article 1(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (3), signed in Montreal on 28 May 1999, to be interpreted as meaning that claims for damages by an injured party: — who was a passenger in an aircraft which had the same take-off and landing place in a Member State, — who was carried by the pilot free of charge, — the purpose of the flight being, in connection with a real-property transaction planned with the pilot, to view the property from the air, and — who was physically injured when the aircraft crashed, must be adjudged exclusively in accordance with Article 17 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, signed in Montreal on 28 May 1999, and that national law is not applicable? If the reply to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 5 June 2014 — Skatteministeriet v Baby Dan A/S

(Case C-272/14)

2014/C 253/27

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant: Baby Dan A/S

Question referred

Must spindles with the specific characteristics as described be classified under CN heading 7318 or 8302?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/23

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 5 April 2014 — Pierre Fabre Médicament v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes Publics et de la Réforme de l’État, Ministre des Affaires Sociales et de la Santé

(Case C-273/14)

2014/C 282/29

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pierre Fabre Médicament

Defendants: Ministre du Budget, des Comptes Publics et de la Réforme de l’État, Ministre des Affaires Sociales et de la Santé

Question referred

Do points 3 and 5 of Article 6 of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (1) apply to decisions removing a proprietary product from the list of medicinal products administered to inpatients in health establishments that may be covered by compulsory health insurance schemes in addition to hospital treatments covered in the context of fixed payments for stays and care determined by diagnosis related group?

(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8.
2.

If that is not the case, given that an (EC) regulation has direct effect, what should be understood by ‘review of [a] judgment’ in Article 19(1) of Regulation No 805/2004 …? Must a review procedure be provided for only if a summons/document instituting proceedings has been served by a method provided for in Article 14 of Regulation No 805/2004 …, in other words without proof of receipt? Does Belgian legislation not offer satisfactory guarantees to satisfy the [criterion] of ‘review procedure’ provided for in Article 19(1) of Regulation No 805/2004 … by providing for opposition in accordance with Article 1047 et seq. of the Belgisch Gerechtelijk Wetboek (Belgian Judicial Code) and an appeal in accordance with Article 1050 et seq. of the Belgisch Gerechtelijk Wetboek?
7)

(a) If question 6 is answered to the effect that technical problems which are considered to be unexpected flight safety shortcomings constitute extraordinary circumstances which may justify invoking Article 5(3) of the Regulation if they arise from an event which is not inherent in the exercise of the activities of the airline and is beyond the actual control of the latter, does that then mean that a technical problem which arose spontaneously and is not attributable to poor maintenance and was moreover not detected during routine maintenance checks (the said A-D Checks and the Daily Control …) can or cannot constitute an extraordinary circumstance — on the assumption that it could not be detected during the regular maintenance operations — because then no event as referred to in paragraph 26 can be identified and it is therefore also not possible to determine whether such an event is inherent in the exercise of the activities of the airline and is thus beyond the control of the air carrier? (b) If question 6 is answered to the effect that technical problems which are considered to be unexpected flight safety shortcomings are events as referred to in paragraph 22 and the technical problem arose spontaneously and is not attributable to poor maintenance and was moreover not detected during routine maintenance checks (the said A-D Checks and the Daily Control), is that technical problem inherent or not inherent in the exercise of the activities of the airline and is it or is it not thus beyond the actual control of the airline within the meaning of the aforementioned paragraph 26? (c) If question 6 is answered to the effect that technical problems which are considered to be unexpected flight safety shortcomings are events as referred to in paragraph 22 and the technical problem arose spontaneously and is not attributable to poor maintenance and was moreover not detected during routine maintenance checks (the said A-D Checks and the Daily Control), what circumstances should then surround that technical problem and when should those circumstances be regarded as extraordinary so that they may be relied upon for the purposes of Article 5(3) of the Regulation?
1.

Must the fourth paragraph of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that operators of installations to which, as from the beginning of 2013, the emissions-trading rules laid down in 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) have been applicable, with the exception of operators of the installations referred to in Article 10a(3) of that directive and of newcomers, could undoubtedly have brought an action before the General Court seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27), in so far as the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor is determined by that decision?
1.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (‘the Sixth Directive’) allows Member States, for the purposes of calculating the proportion of input VAT deductible for a given operation, such as the construction of a mixed-use building, to give precedence, as the key to allocation, to an allocation key other than that based on turnover appearing in Article 19(1) of the Sixth Directive, on condition that the method used guarantees a more precise determination of that deductible proportion (judgment in Case C-511/10 BLC Baumarkt [EU:C:2012:689]). (a) At the time of acquisition or construction of a mixed-use building, for the purposes of calculating more precisely the deductible amounts of input tax, must inputs the basis of assessment of which is part of the acquisition or construction costs be attributed initially to the (taxable or exempt) turnover of the building and only the remaining input tax attributed by reference to a floor-area or turnover allocation key? (b) Do the principles established by the Court of Justice in its judgment in BLC Baumarkt and the answer to the foregoing question apply also to amounts of input tax on inputs for the use, conservation or maintenance of a mixed-use building?
1.

Must Articles 203 and 204 of the Community Customs Code, (1) read in conjunction with Article 859 (in particular paragraph 6) of [the Regulation implementing the Community Customs Code], (2) be interpreted as meaning that, where the external Community customs transit procedure has not ended, but documents have in fact been produced which make it possible to assume that the goods have left the customs territory of the European Union, the fact that that procedure has not ended does not lead to the incurring of a customs debt by reason of a removal of the goods from customs supervision within the meaning of Article 203 of the Community Customs Code but, in principle, to the incurring of a customs debt on the basis of Article 204 of the Community Customs Code?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 339/2

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 30 June 2014 — Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL), Istituto Nazionale Confederale Assistenza (INCA) v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-309/14)

2014/C 339/02

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL),

Istituto Nazionale Confederale Assistenza (INCA)

Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri,

Ministero dell’Interno,

Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Question referred

Do the principles laid down in Council Directive 2003/109/EC (1) as subsequently amended and supplemented, preclude rules of national law, such as those laid down in Article 5(2-ter) of Legislative Decree No 286 of 25 July 1998, in that they provide that ‘the application for the issue and the renewal of the residence permit shall be subject to the payment of a fee, the amount of which shall be set at a minimum of EUR 80 and a maximum of EUR 200 by joint decree of the Ministry of the Economy and Finance and of the Ministry of the Interior which shall also lay down the conditions for the payment …’ thereby fixing a minimum amount for the fee equal to around eight times the charge for the issue of a national identity card?

(1) Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 329/2

Action brought on 27 June 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-308/14)

2014/C 329/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, M. Wilderspin, agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the United Kingdom, by the requirement that a claimant for Child Benefit or Child tax Credit have a right to reside in the United Kingdom, has failed to comply with its obligations under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1);

— order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission maintains that in requiring a claimant of Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit to have a right to reside in the United Kingdom as a condition of being treated as resident there, the United Kingdom has imposed a condition that Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 does not permit.

Alternatively the Commission submits that by imposing a condition of entitlement to social security benefits that is automatically met by its own nationals the United Kingdom has created a situation of direct discrimination against nationals of other Member States and thus breached article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004.

(1) 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 L 166, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 361/3

Action brought on 18 July 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-346/14)

2014/C 361/03

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the defendant failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU in conjunction with Article 288 TFEU, in so far as by granting permission for the construction of a hydropower plant on the Schwarze Sulm (Black Sulm) it incorrectly applied the provisions of Article 4(1) in conjunction with Article 4(7) of the Water Framework Directive (1) (WFD);

— order Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Austria sees to avoid the prohibition of deterioration which is laid down in Article 4(1) as a fundamental principle and thereby failed to satisfy the conditions for receiving an exception under Article 4(7) WFD.

The application of the directive ratione temporis is based on the Court’s case-law, according to which during the period allowed for transposition of a directive, Member States must refrain from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by the directive (Article 4(3) TEU in conjunction with Article 288 TFEU).

The defendant bases its new decision solely on an amended assessment of the water status of the Schwarze Sulm. That amended classification (‘good’ water status instead of ‘very good’ water status) is not compatible with the original management plan. Findings and assessments in the management plan may not simply be amended as the result of an ad-hoc administrative decision based on new criteria. Otherwise, fundamental substantive provisions of the Water Framework Directive, such as in this case the prohibition of deterioration, and important procedural provisions, such as those on public participation, could be easily avoided.

(1) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).
1.

How should Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1), relating to the court which is to have exclusive jurisdiction, be interpreted where, in the terms and conditions of the contract, the contracting parties which are in dispute have attributed jurisdiction to hear disputes relating to the contract to various courts? Furthermore, is the applicant free to choose from among the courts selected the forum which has exclusive jurisdiction and those which have alternative jurisdiction and can the exclusive jurisdiction of the court which is hearing the case be inferred accordingly?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 388/2

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 7 August 2014 — TOP Logistics BV and Van Caem International BV v Bacardi & Co. Ltd and Bacardi International Ltd

(Case C-379/14)

2014/C 388/02

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: TOP Logistics BV, Van Caem International BV

Respondents: Bacardi & Co. Ltd, Bacardi International Ltd

Questions referred

These questions concern goods originating outside the EEA which, after having been brought into the territory of the EEA (neither by the trade mark proprietor nor with its consent), are placed, in a Member State of the European Union, under the external transit procedure or under the customs warehousing procedure (within the meaning of the Community Customs Code: Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) (old) and Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 (2)).

1. Where, in circumstances such as those in the case at issue, such goods are subsequently placed under a duty suspension arrangement, must those goods then be regarded as having been imported within the meaning of Article 5(3)(c) of Directive 89/104/EEC (3) (now Directive 2008/95/EC) (4), with the result that there is ‘[use] (of the sign) in the course of trade’ that can be prohibited by the trade mark proprietor pursuant to Article 5(1) of that directive?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must it then be accepted that, in circumstances such as those in the case at issue, the mere presence in a Member State of such goods (which have been placed under a duty suspension arrangement in that Member State) does not prejudice, or cannot prejudice, the functions of the trade mark, with the result that the trade mark proprietor which invokes national trade mark rights in that Member State cannot oppose that presence?

(1) Council Regulation of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

(2) Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 laying down the Community Customs Code (Modernised Customs Code) (OJ 2008 L 145, p. 1).

(3) First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).

(4) Directive 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).
Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 260/2013 (1) of 18 March 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007 on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, whether declared as originating in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam or not (OJ 2013 L 82 of 22.3.2013, pp. 10-17; ‘Regulation No 260/2013’) invalid because the anti-dumping duty introduced by Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007, and which was to be extended, was no longer in force at the time when Regulation No 260/2013 was adopted?

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 18 September 2014 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA ‘Veloserviss’

(Case C-427/14)

2014/C 421/30

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant: SIA ‘Veloserviss’

Questions referred

Should Article 78(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations limits the possibility of undertaking for a second time a post-clearance examination and revising the results of the first post-clearance examination?

May the national law of a Member State establish the procedure for the undertaking of post-clearance examinations provided for in Article 78(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992, establishing the Community Customs Code, and limits on the revision of the results of those examinations?

Should Article 78(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992, establishing the Community Customs Code, be interpreted as meaning that national legislation may legitimately contain limitations on the revision of the results of a first post-clearance examination, if information is received indicating that the provisions governing the customs procedure were applied on the basis of incorrect and incomplete information, a matter which was not known at the time of adopting the decision on the first post-clearance examination?

(1) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
2)

If the answer to Question 1 depends on the characteristics of the specific procedure, in combination, if necessary, with the facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of which characteristics, facts and circumstances must the national court then determine whether that procedure is to be regarded as constituting an inquiry within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of the Directive?