ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 359/6

Action brought on 15 October 2013 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-540/13)

2013/C 359/09

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola, M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The European Parliament claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision 2013/392/EU of 22 July 2013 fixing the date of effect of Decision 2008/633/JHA concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by designated authorities of Member States and by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences; (1)

— maintain the effects of Council Decision 2013/392/EU, until such time that it is replaced by a new act adopted in accordance with law;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament puts forward two pleas in law in support of its action.

First, the European Parliament disputes the Council’s use of an incorrect decision-making procedure for the adoption of Decision 2013/392/EU. The European Parliament should in fact have been involved in the adoption of the contested decision under an ordinary legislative procedure. Having not been involved with the adoption of the act, the European Parliament considers that the decision-making procedure followed by the Council is vitiated by an essential procedural requirement.

Second, the European Parliament alleges that the Council used either a legal basis which had been repealed by the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, or a secondary legal basis which is unlawful under the case-law of the Court of Justice.

Finally, should the Court of Justice decide to annul the contested decision, the Parliament considers that it would be appropriate for the Court to maintain the effects of the contested decision, in accordance with Article 264, second paragraph, TFEU, until such time that it is replaced by a new act adopted in accordance with law.

(1) OJ 2013 L 198, p. 45.
4.

If the third question should be answered in the affirmative, are general criteria to be applied in classifying such agreements as consumer contracts or should they be recognised as consumer contracts according to special criteria? If it is necessary to apply special criteria for the classification of such agreements as consumer contracts, what are those criteria?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 377/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari (Italia) lodged on 25 October 2013 — SETAR — v Comune di Quartu S. Elena

(Case C-551/13)

2013/C 377/17

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SETAR — Società Edilizia Turistica Alberghiera Residenziale

Opposing party: Comune di Quartu S. Elena

Question referred

Does Community law preclude the rules laid down in Article 188 of Legislative Decree No 152/2006 and Decree of the Minister for the Environment of 17 December 2009, under which the entry into force of the legislation transposing Directive 2008/98/EC (1) into national law is to be delayed pending the adoption of a ministerial decree laying down the related technical rules and specifying the time-limits within which that implementing legislation is to enter into force?

(1) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 15/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral (Portugal) lodged on 28 October 2013 — Merck Canada Inc. v Accord Healthcare Limited and Others

(Case C-555/13)

2014/C 15/11

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Merck Canada Inc.

Defendants: Accord Healthcare Limited, Alter SA, Labochem Ltd, Synthon BV, Ranbaxy Portugal — Comércio e Desenvolvimento de Produtos Farmacêuticos, Unipessoal Lda

Question referred

May Article 13 of Regulation No 469/2009 (1) be interpreted as permitting, by means of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, the period for exclusive exploitation of the patented invention to be more than fifteen years from the date of the first authorisation to place the medicinal product in question on the market within the Community (not including the extension provided for in Article 13(3) of that regulation)?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (Codified version) (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1).
2.

If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, must Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC be interpreted as meaning that making provision in national law for an indirect tax which is charged on the sale of excise goods to the final consumer and is used solely for the organisation of public transport is consistent with that provision, if the organisation of public transport is an obligation of the local authority receiving the tax which must be fulfilled regardless of the existence of such an indirect tax, and the level of funding of the organisation of public transport ultimately does not depend automatically on the amount of tax collected, because the amount of the sum allocated to the organisation of public transport is calculated precisely in such a way that if the indirect tax being collected produces more income, the allocation of other funds by the public authorities to the organisation of public transport is reduced to that extent and, conversely, if the sales tax produces less income, the local authority has to increase other funds to that extent for the organisation of public transport, it being possible, however, in the event of the revenue differing from that forecast to change the amount of expenditure on the organisation of public transport by means of amending the local authority’s budget?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/14

Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by Masco Corp., Hansgrohe AG, Hansgrohe Deutschland Vertriebs GmbH, Hansgrohe Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Hansgrohe SA/NV, Hansgrohe BV, Hansgrohe SARL, Hansgrohe Srl, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe Belgium SA (NV), Hüppe BV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-378/10: Masco Corp. and Others v European Commission

(Case C-614/13 P)

2014/C 24/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Masco Corp., Hansgrohe AG, Hansgrohe Deutschland Vertriebs GmbH, Hansgrohe Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Hansgrohe SA/NV, Hansgrohe BV, Hansgrohe SARL, Hansgrohe Srl, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe Belgium SA (NV), Hüppe BV (represented by: D. Schroeder, Rechtsanwalt, S. Heinz, Rechtsanwältin, J. Temple Lang, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the General Court’s judgment in Case T-378/10 insofar as it dismisses their request to annul Article 1 of the Commission’s decision of 23 June 2010 in Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures insofar as it finds that the Appellants have participated in a continuing agreement or concerted practice ‘in the bathroom fittings and fixtures sector’;

— annul the Commission’s decision of 23 June 2010 in Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures insofar as it finds that the Appellants have participated in a continuing agreement or concerted practice ‘in the bathroom fittings and fixtures sector’;

— order the Commission to pay the Appellants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and

— take any other measures that this Court considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appeal contains two pleas.

According to the first plea, the General Court erred in law by manifestly distorting the evidence and by misapplying the legal test for finding that the Appellants participated in a single, complex infringement covering ceramics products.

According to the second plea, the General Court erred in law by failing to state adequate reasons for its finding.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/11

Action brought on 20 November 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-591/13)

2014/C 24/20

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by adopting and retaining provisions under which the tax on hidden reserves, which have been realised upon the sale for consideration of certain capital assets, is deferred by ‘transfer’ to newly purchased or produced capital assets until their sale, in so far as the latter assets belong to the capital assets of a taxpayer’s domestic permanent establishment, whereas such a deferral is not possible in so far as the same assets belong to the capital assets of a taxpayer’s permanent establishment which is located in another Member State or in another State of the European Economic Area, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU and Article 31 of the EEA Agreement (1);

— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under the German provisions, the resulting profit on the sale of certain capital assets of a business is not immediately taxed where the taxpayer goes on to purchase anew or produce certain capital assets of the business within a certain time period. In that case, the taxation of the aforementioned profit from the sale of the original assets is deferred by way of a ‘transfer’ of the corresponding hidden reserves until the sale of the newly purchased or produced assets. That deferral can, however, be granted only where the newly purchased or produced assets belong to the capital assets of a domestic permanent establishment, and not, however, where the permanent establishment concerned is located in another Member State or in another State of the European Economic Area. According to the Commission, that rule infringes the freedom of establishment.

(1) Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area, OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 31/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 19 November 2013 — Directeur général des finances publiques, Mapfre Warranty SpA v Mapfre asistencia compania internacional de seguros y reaseguros, Directeur général des finances publiques

(Case C-584/13)

2014/C 31/05

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Directeur général des finances publiques, Mapfre Warranty SpA

Respondents: Mapfre asistencia compania internacional de seguros y reaseguros, Directeur général des finances publiques

Question referred

Must Article 2 and Article 13(B)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 be interpreted as meaning that the service whereby an economic operator which is independent of a second-hand motor vehicle dealer provides, in return for payment of a lump sum, a warranty covering mechanical breakdowns which may affect certain parts of the second-hand vehicle falls within the category of insurance transactions exempt from value added tax or, on the contrary, as meaning that such a supply falls within the category of ‘supply of services’?

(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.

In its second ground , the appellant objects to the merging of factually and legally independent courses of conduct into one allegedly single, complex and continuous infringement. The appellant also contends that the application by the General Court and the Commission of the principle of ‘one single, complex and continuous infringement’ is at variance with the right to due process and the proper administration of justice and contrary to the legal requirement of review by the General Court.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Versailles (France) lodged on 6 December 2013 — Works Council of Nortel Networks SA and Others v Me Rogeau, Liquidator of Nortel Networks SA, Alan Robert Bloom and Others

(Case C-649/13)

2014/C 39/23

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de commerce de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Works Council of Nortel Networks SA and Others

Defendants: Me Rogeau, Liquidator of Nortel Networks SA, Alan Robert Bloom and Others

Question referred

Do the courts of the State in which secondary proceedings have been opened have exclusive jurisdiction over or concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of the State in which the main proceedings have been opened, to rule on the determination of the debtor’s assets falling with the scope of the effects of the secondary proceedings in accordance with Articles 2(g), 3(2) and 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (1) and, in the event that there is exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction, is the applicable law that of the main proceedings or of the secondary proceedings?

(1) OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/2

Appeal brought on 21 November 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2013 in Case T-465/11: Globula v European Commission

(Case C-596/13 P)

2014/C 61/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, L. Armati, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Globula a.s., Czech Republic

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2013, notified to the Commission on 11 September 2013, in Case T-465/11 Globula v European Commission;

— rule that the first plea at first instance is not well founded and refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the second and third pleas at first instance; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the Commission the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

First, violation of Articles 288 and 297(1) TFEU, by finding that the rules of the Second Gas Directive (1) apply to the case at hand: this first set of arguments advanced by the Commission will deal with the question whether the General Court was correct in holding (implicitly) that the Commission applied the Third Gas Directive (2) retroactively.

Second, the General Court erred in its legal characterisation of the facts and failed to properly apply the legal standard that it itself had announced: assuming that the General Court was correct in holding that application of the substantive rules of the Third Gas Directive would have been retroactive (quod non), the question whether the rules contained in Article 36 of the Third Gas Directive constitute an indivisible whole from the point of view of the time at which they take effect will be addressed in order to assess whether the General Court was also correct to hold that retroactive application of the procedural rules contained in that Directive was similarly prohibited.

In Commission's view, the assessment of the notified exemption decision in question on the basis of the procedural and substantive rules laid down in the Third Gas Directive did not entail a retroactive application of that act but is consistent with the principle of immediate application under which a provision of Union law applies from the time it enters into force to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old rule.

(1) Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC.

OJ L 176, p. 57

(2) Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC.

OJ L 211, p. 94
2.

Is the second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 to be interpreted as meaning that the final price to be paid must, in the context of a computerised booking system, be indicated only for the air service specifically selected by the customer or for each air service shown?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/24

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timișoara (Romania) lodged on 3 June 2013 — Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Centrul Județean Timiș v Curtea de Conturi a României, Camera de Conturi a Județului Timiș

(Case C-304/13)

2014/C 52/43

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Timișoara

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Centrul Județean Timiș

Respondents: Curtea de Conturi a României, Camera de Conturi a Județului Timiș

Intervener: Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA)

Question referred

Do the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003, (1) in particular Articles 115 and 135 thereof, preclude a State from making the grant of a premium to a farmer subject to additional conditions, which are not laid down in that regulation, namely the condition that the farmer must ‘have no debts due in respect of the State budget and/or the local budget at the date of application for the premium’?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).
2.

Does the fact that the State imposed a unilateral suspension of the payment of those items of remuneration and applied this only to a specific category of workers — those in the public sector — constitute discrimination having regard to the nature of the employment relationship?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/3

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 13 December 2013 — Surgicare — Unidades de Saúde SA v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-662/13)

2014/C 78/06

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Surgicare — Unidades de Saúde SA

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Question referred

When the tax authorities suspect the existence of an abusive practice designed to obtain a VAT refund and Portuguese law provides for a mandatory preliminary procedure applicable to abusive practices in taxation matters, is that procedure to be regarded as inapplicable to VAT, given the Community origin of that tax?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 421/17

Appeal brought on 18 September 2013 by Page Protective Services Ltd against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 July 2013 in Case T-221/13 Page Protective Services Ltd v European External Action Service (EEAS)

(Case C-501/13 P)

2014/C 421/24

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Page Protective Services Ltd (represented by: J.-P. Hordies, avocat, and E. Lock, solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS)

By order of 2 October 2014, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Page Protective Services Ltd to bear its own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Comércio de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Portuguese State v Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português SA, em liquidação

(Case C-667/13)

2014/C 93/31

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal do Comércio de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Portuguese State

Defendant: Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português SA, em liquidação

Questions referred

1. Is the Decision (1) vitiated by failure to state adequate reasons on the ground that: (a) it failed to state the reason why the guarantee provided by the Portuguese State affects trade between Member States? (b) it failed to specify the reason why the aid granted in the form of a guarantee, which was initially considered to be covered by Article 107(3) TFEU, was then declared to be incompatible with the common market?

2. Is the Decision vitiated by a contradiction between its statement of reasons and its enacting terms as to the date from which the [aid] is to be considered unlawful: 5 December 2008 or 5 June 2009?

3. Does the Decision infringe Article 107(1) TFEU, insofar as the aid granted did not affect trade between Member States, particularly in view of the purpose of the loan and the actual use made of it and the fact that the beneficiary has not carried out its activities since 1 December 2008?

4. Does the decision infringe Article 107(3) TFEU, insofar as the aid was intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State and, as such, is compatible with the common market?

5. Do paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 14 of Regulation 659/1999 (2) preclude, in this specific case, a reduction in the amount to be recovered, when that provision is applicable, without discrimination, to all creditors of the insolvent company?

(1) 2011/346/EU: Commission Decision of 20 July 2010 on the State aid C-33/09 (ex NN 57/09, CP 191/09) implemented by Portugal in the form of a State guarantee to BPP (notified under document C(2010) 4932) — OJ 2011 L 159, p. 95.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty — OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.
—

Declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Decision (1) of the European Commission of 24 May 2011, since it has not taken within the prescribed time-limit all the measures necessary for the recovery of unlawful State aid from the Casinos of Mont Parnès, Corfu and Thessaloniki, and, in any event, since it has not fully informed the Commission of the exact amount to be recovered (principal and interest) from all the beneficiaries of the unlawful State aid and of the other measures which it took in accordance with Article 4 of the Decision;