ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

(a) . Is the relevant EU law, in particular Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on Part-Time Work annexed to Directive 97/81 (1) concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC as amended by Directive 98/23 (2) and Article 4 of Directive 2006/54/EC (3) 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 in conjunction with Council Directive 2000/78/EC (4) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, to be interpreted as precluding national statutory provisions or practices which, in determining the amount of an occupational old-age pension, distinguish between employment income falling below the ceiling for the assessment of contributions to the statutory pension scheme and employment income exceeding that ceiling (the ‘split pension formula’) and in so doing do not treat income from part-time employment in such a manner that the income payable in respect of corresponding full-time employment is first determined, the proportion above and below the contribution assessment ceiling is established on that basis, and that proportion is then applied to the reduced income from part-time employment? If Question 1(a) is answered in the negative: (b) Is the relevant EU law, in particular Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on Part-Time Work annexed to Directive 97/81 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC as amended by Directive 98/23 and Article 4 of 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 in conjunction with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, to be interpreted as precluding national statutory provisions or practices which, in determining the amount of an occupational old-age pension, distinguish between employment income falling below the ceiling for the assessment of contributions to the statutory pension scheme and employment income exceeding that ceiling (the ‘split pension formula’) and, in the case of an employee who has worked on both a full-time and part-time basis, do not take account of specific periods (e.g. individual calendar years) but determine a uniform degree of employment for the total duration of the employment relationship and apply the split pension formula only to the resulting average remuneration?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 2 August 2016 — Małgorzata Ciupa and Others v II Szpital Miejski im. L. Rydygiera w Łodzi, now Szpital Ginekologiczno-Położniczy im dr L. Rydygiera Sp. z o.o. w Łodzi

(Case C-429/16)

(2016/C 392/13)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Małgorzata Ciupa and Others

Defendant: II Szpital Miejski im. L. Rydygiera w Łodzi, now Szpital Ginekologiczno-Położniczy im dr L. Rydygiera Sp. z o.o. w Łodzi

Question referred

‘Is Article 2 of Directive 98/59/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an employer employing at least 20 employees and who intends to give notices of termination of contractual conditions in relation to a number of employees, as provided for in Article 1(1) of the Law of 13 March 2003 laying down special rules on terminating employment relationships with employees for reasons unrelated to the employees (Ustawa o szczególnych zasadach rozwiązywania z pracownikami stosunków pracy z przyczyn niedotyczących pracowników, Dz. U. 2003, No 90, item 844, as amended), is required to use the procedures specified in Articles 2, 3, 4 and 6 of that law, that is, does that obligation apply in the case of the following articles:

1. Article 241(2) 13 in conjunction with Article 241(2) 8 and Article 23 1 of the Labour Code (Kodeks pracy);

2. Article 241(2) 13 in conjunction with Article 77(5) 2 or Article 241(1) 7 of the Labour Code;

3. Article 42(1) of the Labour Code in conjunction with Article 45(1) of the Labour Code?’

(1) Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies; OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.
3.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: is the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania covered by the term ‘judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, and is the EAW issued by that authority consequently a ‘judicial decision’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 17 August 2016 — Finanzamt Bingen-Alzey v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-462/16)

(2016/C 402/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt Bingen-Alzey

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

Question referred

On the basis of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (judgment of 24 October 1996 in Elida Gibbs, C-317/94 (1)) and having regard to the principle of equal treatment under EU law, is a pharmaceutical company which supplies medicinal products entitled to a reduction of the taxable amount under Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax in the case where

— it supplies those medicinal products to pharmacies via wholesalers,

— the pharmacies supply those products, subject to tax, to persons with private health insurance,

— the insurer of the medical expense insurance (the private health insurance company) reimburses the persons insured by it for the costs of purchasing the medicinal products, and

— the pharmaceutical company is required to pay a ‘discount’ to the private health insurance company pursuant to a statutory provision?

(1) ECLI:EU:C:1996:400, paragraphs 28 and 31.

(2) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/31

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ministarstvo pomorstva, prometa i infrastrukture — Uprava zračnog prometa, elektroničkih komunikacija i pošte (Croatia) lodged on 30 August 2016 — Hrvatska agencija za civilno zrakoplovstvo v Air Serbia A.D. Beograd, and Dane Kondič, direktor Air Serbia A.D. Beograd

(Case C-476/16)

(2016/C 419/41)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Ministarstvo pomorstva, prometa i infrastrukture — Uprava zračnog prometa, elektroničkih komunikacija i pošte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hrvatska agencija za civilno zrakoplovstvo

Defendant: Air Serbia A.D. Beograd, and Dane Kondič, direktor Air Serbia A.D. Beograd

Question referred

Is the practice of an airline of a signatory to the Multilateral Agreement on the Establishment of a European common aviation area (ECAA) which consists in providing commercial air transportation services departing from one of the Member States of the European Union, via its country of origin as a transfer point where passengers and their luggage are transhipped to another aircraft belonging to the same company, and travelling to a Member State of the European Union or a third country on the basis of an autonomous transport ticket which indicates two different flight numbers consistent with the interpretation of EU law in general and with the interpretation of Article 3(1)(a)(i) of Protocol VI included in Annex V of the ECAA in particular?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 8 August 2016 — Docteur De Bruyne SPRL v The Belgian State

(Case C-445/16)

(2016/C 410/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Docteur De Bruyne SPRL

Defendant: The Belgian State

Question referred

‘Is the fact that a company issuing a share option may record as income the purchase price of that option in the course of the financial year in which that option is taken up or at the end of its period of validity in order to take into account the risk borne by the option issuer which results from the commitment he makes, [rather than] in the course of the tax year in which the option is purchased and its final price set — the risk borne by the issuer being valued separately by the recording of a provision — compatible with the accounting rules concerning balance sheets laid down by the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ L 222, 14.08.1978, p. 11), according to which:

— the annual accounts are to give a true and fair view of the company’s assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss (Article 2(3) of the Directive);

— provisions for liabilities and charges are intended to cover losses or debts the nature of which is clearly defined and which at the date of the balance sheet are either likely to be incurred, or certain to be incurred but uncertain as to amount or as to the date on which they will arise (Article 20(1) of the Directive);

— the principle of prudence must in all circumstances be observed, and in particular: — only profits made at the balance sheet date may be included; — account must be taken of all foreseeable liabilities and potential losses arising in the course of the financial year concerned or of a previous one, even if such liabilities or losses become apparent only between the date of the balance sheet and the date on which it is drawn up (Article 31(1) (c), (aa) and (bb) of the Directive);

— account must be taken of income and charges relating to the financial year, irrespective of the date of receipt or payment of such income or charges (Article 31(1)(d) of the Directive);

— the components of asset and liability items are to be valued separately (Article 31(1)(e) of the Directive);

…?’
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Colmar (France) lodged on 29 August 2016 — The public prosecutor, Belu Dienstleistung GmbH & Co KG, Stefan Nikless

(Case C-474/16)

(2016/C 441/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Colmar

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: The public prosecutor, Belu Dienstleistung GmbH & Co KG, Stefan Nikless

Question referred

Is the legal effect of an A1 certificate issued to a temporary-work agency, in accordance with Article 19 of 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 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, (1) by the institution designated by the Member State whose social security legislation remains applicable to the employed worker, binding, first, on the institutions and authorities of the host Member State and, secondly, on the courts of that Member State, if it is found that the conditions under which the employee pursues the activity clearly do not fall within the substantive scope of the specific rules set out in Article 12(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004?

(1) OJ L 284, 30.10.2009, p. 1.
1.

Is a provision of national law under which the user of a railway infrastructure against whom an action has been brought by the infrastructure manager before a civil court for payment of a user charge, or who seeks before that court to secure repayment of user charges already paid, may argue that the charge set by the infrastructure manager is not fair and reasonable compatible with the provisions of the directive (1) concerning the independence of the management of the infrastructure undertaking (Article 4(1), (4) and (5)), the principles governing the fixing of charges (Articles 7 to 12) and the tasks of the regulatory body (Article 30)?
Appeal brought on 23 May 2016 by Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V agains t the judgment of the General 
Cour t (Sixth Chamber) deliv ered on 18 March 2016 in Case T-33/15, Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO (BIMBO)
(Case C-285/16 P)
(2016/C 475/13)
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Appellant: Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V. (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)
Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellect ual Proper ty Offi ce
By order of 13 Octob er 2016, the Cour t of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Grupo Bimbo, S.A. 
B. de C.V. to bear its own costs. 
Appeal brought on 27 May 2016 by Médis — Companhia por tuguesa de seguros de saúde, SA against 
the order of the General Cour t (Sixth Chamber) deliv ered on 15 March 2016 in Case T-774/15: Médis 
v EUIPO — Médis
(Case C-313/16 P)
(2016/C 475/14)
Language of the case: Engl ish
Parties
Appellant: Médis — Companhia portuguesa de seguros de saúde, SA (represented by: M. Mar tinho do Rosár io, advog ada)
Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellect ual Proper ty Offi ce (EUIPO)
By order of 19 October 2016 the Cour t of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible. 
Request for a preliminar y ruling from the Bundesger ichtshof (Ger many) lodged on 6 September 
2016 — Julia Markmann and Others v TUIf ly GmbH
(Case C-479/16)
(2016/C 475/15)
Language of the case: German
Refe rring cour t
Bundesgerichtshof
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Julia Markmann, Rene Markmann, Emilia Markmann, Jana Markmann
Defendant: TUIf ly GmbH
The case was remo ved from the Regist er of the Cour t of Justice by order of the Cour t of 11 Octob er 2016. C 475/10 EN Official Jour nal of the European Union 19.12.2016
1.

Is the granting of compensation in the amount of between 2,5 and 12 monthly payments of the last overall salary payment (Article 32(5) of Law No 183/2010) to a public employee, who is a victim of the unlawful successive renewal of fixed-term contracts, who may obtain full compensation only by proving the loss of other work opportunities or by proving that, if he had participated in an open competition, he would have been successful, an equivalent and effective measure within the meaning of the judgments of the Court of Justice in Mascolo [and Others (C-22/13, C-61/13 to C-63/13 and C-418/13)] and Marrosu [and Sardino] (C-53/04)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti (Italy) lodged on 12 October 2016 — Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v Francesco Faggiano

(Case C-524/16)

(2017/C 014/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei Conti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale

Defendant: Francesco Faggiano

Questions referred

1. Must the rules of EU law laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/1971 of the Council of 14 June 1971 (1) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/1998 of 29 June 1998 (2) be interpreted to the effect that a request for aggregation of social security contributions made to several pension funds, in particular in the home Member State and in another Member State of the European Union, may not be made by a person already in receipt of a pension?

2. Does Article 49(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/1971 of the Council of 14 June 1971 preclude a national rule such as the Italian rule laid down in Article 71 of Law No 388 of 23 December 2000, according to which a request for aggregation of social security contributions made to several pension funds, in particular in the home Member State and in another Member State of the European Union, is confined to those who have not yet acquired the right to a pension from any social security fund?

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 with a view to extending them to cover special schemes for civil servants (OJ 1998 L 209, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/29

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 October 2016 — UAB ‘Spika’, AB ‘Senoji Baltija’, UAB ‘Stekutis’, UAB ‘Prekybos namai Aistra’ v Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos

(Case C-540/16)

(2017/C 006/36)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: UAB ‘Spika’, AB ‘Senoji Baltija’, UAB ‘Stekutis’, UAB ‘Prekybos namai Aistra’

Respondent: Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos

Other parties: Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerija, BUAB ‘Sedija’, UAB ‘Starkis’, UAB ‘Baltijos šprotai’, UAB ‘Ramsun’, AB ‘Laivitė’, UAB ‘Baltlanta’, UAB ‘Strimelė’, V. Malinausko gamybinė-komercinė firma ‘Stilma’, UAB ‘Banginis’, UAB ‘Monistico’, UAB ‘Rikneda’, UAB ‘Baltijos jūra’, UAB ‘Grinvita’, BUAB ‘Baltijos žuvys’

Question referred

Are Articles 17 and 2(5)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC, in the light of Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that, when a Member State exercises the discretion provided for in Article 16(6), it is prohibited from choosing a method of allocation of the fishing quotas allocated to it which causes unequal conditions of competition for economic operators engaging in activity in this field on account of a greater quantity of fishing opportunities, even if that method is based on a transparent and objective criterion?

(1) OJ 2013 L 354, p. 22.
1.

Although the Member States have the ability to require payment for soccorso istruttorio, a procedure whereby the tenderer is given an opportunity to remedy shortcomings in its tendering documentation, which has the effect of remedying any irregularity, is Article 38(2a) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 2006, in the version in force at the time of the tendering procedure in question …, which makes provision for the payment of a ‘pecuniary penalty’, in so far as that penalty must be fixed by the contracting authority (‘not less than 0.1 % and not more than 1 % of the value of the contract and in any event not more than EUR 50 000, the payment of which shall be guaranteed by the provisional security’), contrary to EU law in view of the excessively high amount and the predetermined nature of that penalty, which cannot be adjusted according to the specific situation to be regulated or the seriousness of the irregularity to be remedied?
1.

Under Article 16 (‘Uniform application of Community competition law’) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, does Commission Decision (2) of 12 April 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/B-1/38.348 — Repsol C.P.P.) preclude a national court from declaring that the agreements to which that decision applies are invalid on account of the duration of the exclusive supply period, even though they may be declared invalid for other reasons such as, for example, the imposition of a minimum retail price by the supplier on the buyer (or reseller)?
2.

If the Court answers question 1 to the effect that avoidability relates to the delay: if the aircraft on the preceding flight is affected by the extraordinary circumstances, must the operating air carrier attempt to find a replacement aircraft already upon the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstances in the preceding flight, or can it wait until it is certain that the extraordinary circumstances lead to a considerable delay to the following flight?
7.

Do Article 1(3)(i) and Article 10(1) of Directive 94/19 have direct effect and do they confer on holders of deposits in a bank which is a member of a deposit-guarantee scheme, in addition to their right to compensation under that scheme up to the amount specified in Article 7(1) of Directive 94/19, the right to hold the State liable for an infringement of EU law by bringing an action against the authority required to determine the unavailability of deposits, seeking compensation for the damage which has arisen as a result of the late payment of the guaranteed deposit, if the decision under Article 1(3)(i) was taken after the expiry of the time-limit of five days laid down in the directive and that lateness is due to the effect of a reorganisation measure which was intended to protect the bank from insolvency and was adopted by that authority, or, in circumstances like those in the main proceedings, do they permit a national provision such as Article 79(8) of the ZKI, under which the BNB, its organs and persons authorised by them are liable for damage arising in the performance of their supervisory activity only if it was caused intentionally?