ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
I.

With regard to Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (‘Regulation No 593/2008’): 1. May a court or tribunal of a Member State interpret the expression ‘it appears from the circumstances’ used in Article 10(2) of Regulation No 593/2008 as meaning that the examination of ‘the circumstances which must be taken into consideration’ in order to determine whether it is reasonable to find that a party did not consent, under the law of the State in which the party has his habitual residence, must cover the circumstances of the conclusion of the contract, the subject-matter of the contract and the performance of the contract? 1.1 Must the effect referred to in Article 10(2) resulting from the situation described in the preceding paragraph 1 be interpreted as meaning that when, as a result of the reference made [to the law of the country of habitual residence] by a party, it appears from the circumstances that consent to the law applicable pursuant to paragraph 1 was not a reasonable effect of that party’s conduct, the court must determine the existence and validity of the contractual clause pursuant to the law of the country of habitual residence of the party who made the reference? 2. May the court of that Member State interpret Article 10(2) of Regulation No 593/2008 as meaning that the court has a discretion — having regard to all the circumstances of the case — if, in the light of the circumstances to be taken into consideration, consent to the law applicable under Article 10(1) was not a reasonable effect of the party’s conduct? 3. If a party — under Article 10(2) of Regulation No 593/2008 — refers to the law of the country in which he has his habitual residence in order to establish that he did not consent, must the court of a Member State take into account the law of the country of habitual residence of that party in the sense that, by virtue of the law of that country, because of the ‘circumstances’ mentioned, the consent of that party to the law chosen in the contract was not reasonable conduct? 3.1 In that case, is an interpretation by a court of a Member State contrary to EU law if, according to that interpretation, the examination of the ‘circumstances’ in order to determine whether it is reasonable to find that a party did not consent covers the circumstances of the conclusion of the contract, the subject-matter of the contract and the performance of the contract?
1)

For the interpretation of Article 4(1) and Article 4(2)(f) and (k) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (1), may the effects of the insolvency proceedings governed by the law of the State in which proceedings are opened include forfeiture of the right of a creditor, which has not taken part in the insolvency proceedings, to pursue its claim in another Member State or suspension of the enforcement of that claim in that other Member State?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 254/13

Appeal brought on 1 June 2015 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case T-413/13: City Cycle Industries v Council of the European Union

(Case C-260/15 P)

(2015/C 254/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, agent, R. Bierwagen, C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: City Cycle Industries, European Commission, Maxcom Ltd

Form of order sought

The Council respectfully requests the Court:

— that the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015, notified to the Council on 23 March 2015, in Case T-413/13 City Cycle Industries v Council of the European Union be set aside;

— that the application at first instance brought by City Cycle Industries for the annulment of the Contested Regulation (1) be rejected; and

— that City Cycle Industries be ordered to pay the Council’s costs both at first instance and on appeal.

Alternatively,

— that the case be referred back to the General Court for reconsideration;

— that costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal be reserved.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court misinterprets Article 13 (1) of the Basic Regulation (2) when concluding that the Council did not have sufficient evidence to decide that the Applicant was engaged in transhipment. The General Court's interpretation of the conditions that must be met by individual companies in order to be exempted from the extended measures is in contradiction to the structure of Article 13 of the Basic Regulation (first plea).

The General Court's finding, that on the basis of the documents before the Court, the Council had no evidence from which it could expressly conclude in the Contested Regulation that the Applicant was involved in transshipment operations, lacks proper reasoning. Moreover, and contrary to the judgment under appeal, given that transhipment was correctly demonstrated at country level and that the Applicant's exemption request was not justified, the only conclusion the Council, and subsequently the General Court, could have drawn from the facts was that the Applicant has been involved in transhipment. The General Court, in drawing a different conclusion, distorted the facts (second plea).

(1) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not

OJ L 153, p. 1.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community

OJ L 343, p. 51.
1.

Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that extraordinary circumstances which arise during a preceding flight continue to constitute extraordinary circumstances in relation to the flight at issue in the case where the airline operator has the possibility to avoid delay in the remaining flights of the flight sequence by not carrying out certain flights within that flight sequence?
Case C-234/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania) lodged on 21 May 2015 — SC Doris Spedition SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Galați

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania) lodged on 21 May 2015 — SC Doris Spedition SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Galați

(Case C-234/15)

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanţa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SC Doris Spedition SRL

Respondent: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Galați — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Constanța — Serviciul fiscal orăşenesc Hârşova

Third party acting as guarantor: Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu Bucureşti

Question referred

Does Article 110 TFEU preclude the creation, under Article 4(a) of Law No 9/2012, of an obligation to pay a tax on pollutant emissions from second-hand motor vehicles originating in the European Union when the acquisition of ownership of a motor vehicle is registered with the competent authorities under Romanian law by its first owner in Romania and a registration certificate and registration number are issued, a tax which also applies in the event of transfers of ownership of domestic motor vehicles with the exception of cases in which that tax, or a similar tax, has already been paid?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 19 May 2015 — Minister Finansów v Jan Mateusiak

(Case C-229/15)

(2015/C 294/23)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister Finansów

Defendant: Jan Mateusiak

Question referred

Must Article 18(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that, on expiry of the adjustment period referred to in Article 187 of the directive, a taxable person’s fixed assets upon the acquisition of which he deducted VAT, should not be subject to tax and included in the winding-up inventory at the time he ceases his activity, if the period laid down in law for adjusting the input tax on the acquisition thereof, which arises from the estimated period for using those assets in the taxable person’s economic activity, has passed, or as meaning that the fixed assets are subject to tax at the time the taxable person ceases his economic activity, regardless of the adjustment period?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: (a) In the case of an examination as to whether a divorce is eligible for recognition in national territory, must Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 also be applied? (b) If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative: (1) Is account to be taken in the abstract of a comparison showing that, while the law of the forum grants access to divorce to the other spouse too, that divorce is, on account of the other spouse’s sex, subject to different procedural and substantive conditions than access for the first spouse, or (2) Does the validity of that rule depend on whether the application of the foreign law, which is discriminatory in the abstract, also discriminates in the particular case in question? (c) If the answer to Question (b)(2) is in the affirmative: Does the fact that the spouse discriminated against consents to the divorce — including by duly accepting compensation — itself constitute a ground for not applying that rule?
2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, how is that to be reconciled with the principle laid down in the EU Court of Justice’s judgment of 19 November 2009 in Sturgeon and Others, C-402/07 and C-432/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:716, under which Article 5 of the regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed are to be treated as passengers whose flights are cancelled under the rules on compensation, when the EU Court of Justice held in its judgment of 23 October 2012 in Nelson and Others, C-581/10 and C-629/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:657 that delays of over three hours’ duration cannot be taken into account in the calculation of the fixed compensation?
2.

Is it compatible with the abovementioned provision for the fact that the debtor has declared that it is in a state of insolvency and wishes to submit a preliminary request (the features of which are described above) to enter into an arrangement with creditors to be regarded as grounds for excluding a debtor from a public tendering procedure, thereby interpreting broadly the concept of being ‘the subject of proceedings’ established by the provisions of Community law (Article 45 of the directive) and of national law (Article 38 of Legislative Decree No 163/2006) law, cited above?
a)

In the absence of any establishment in another Member State may the presumption provided for by the last part of Article 3(1) and Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (1) be rebutted in a challenge to jurisdiction by evidence that the centre of main interests of a company is in a different State from the one where the company has its registered office.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/14

Appeal brought on 20 March 2015 by Mohammad Makhlouf against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2015 in Case T-509/11 Makhlouf v Council

(Case C-136/15 P)

(2015/C 311/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Mohammad Makhlouf (represented by: G. Karouni, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment under appeal;

— state that the decisions and regulations of the Council of the European Union which are at issue in the present action are null and void in so far as they concern the appellant;

— order the Council to pay the appellant’s costs relating the present appeal and to the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward a single plea in law alleging an error of law by the General Court in the application of the rules relating to the obligation imposed on the Council.

More specifically, the appellant alleges that the General Court relied on the Council’s reasoning which is incomplete and unsubstantiated, which prevented him from identifying the actual and specific reasons for his listing. As a consequence, the appellant was not in a position to ensure an adequate defence, since he was unaware of the acts which were alleged against him concerning the repression of demonstrators, or the provision of support to the regime, or benefiting from the regime.

In addition, the General Court manifestly misstated its obligation to provide reasons by trying to mitigate the Council’s failure to act, by relying, wrongly and for the first time in its judgment, on the fact that the appellant ‘benefits from … the …regime’.

The fact that the Council’s statement of reasons did not set out clearly and explicitly the acts with which he is charged and which gave rise to the restrictive measure, seriously prejudiced the exercise of the appellant’s rights of defence.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/24

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 26 June 2015 — Tecnoedi Costruzioni Srl v Comune di Fossano

(Case C-318/15)

(2015/C 311/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tecnoedi Costruzioni Srl

Defendant: Comune di Fossano

Question referred

Must Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the principles of freedom of establishment, freedom to provide services, equal treatment, non-discrimination and proportionality be interpreted as precluding legislative provisions such as those currently in force in Italy, namely Articles 122(9) and 253(20-bis) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 2006, concerning the automatic exclusion of abnormally low tenders in procedures for the award of works contracts with a value below the threshold which may be of cross-border interest?
1.

Must Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to purchase electrical energy produced in combination with the production of heat, as laid down in Article 9a(8) of the Law of 10 April 1997 on energy law, in the version in force in 2006, adopted on the basis of Article 1, point 13, of the Law of 4 March 2005 amending the Law on energy law and the Law on environmental protection law (Dz.U. 2005, No 62, item 552), constitutes State aid?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/34

Request a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy) of 10 July 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Luciano Baldetti

(Case C-350/15)

(2015/C 311/39)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere

Party to the main proceedings

Luciano Baldetti

Question referred for a preliminary ruling

On a proper construction of Article 4 of [Protocol No 7 to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms] and Article 50 [of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], is the provision made under Article 10b of Legislative Decree No 74/00 consistent with Community law, in so far as it permits the criminal liability of a person to whom a final assessment by the tax authorities of the State has already been issued imposing an administrative penalty in the sum of 30 % of the unpaid amount to be assessed in respect of the same act or omission (non-payment of VAT)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 337/3

Appeal brought on 11 July 2015 by Easy Sanitary Solutions BV against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2015 in Case T-15/13 Group Nivelles v OHIM — Easy Sanitary Solutions (Shower drainage channel)

(Case C-361/15 P)

(2015/C 337/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Easy Sanitary Solutions BV (represented by: F. Eijsvogels, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Group Nivelles BVBA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should

— on the basis of the … grounds put forward and the accompanying explanations, set aside in part the judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 in Case T-15/13 and order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Ground 1

Part (a)

The General Court infringed Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 (1), in conjunction with Article 7(1) thereof, in holding that an earlier design which is incorporated in or applied to a product other than that to which a later design relates is in principle relevant to the assessment of the novelty, within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002, of that later design and that the wording of the latter article would preclude a design from being regarded as new where an identical design has been previously made available to the public, irrespective of the product in which that earlier design has been incorporated or to which it has been applied. The finding of the General Court that the ‘sector concerned’, within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, is not limited to that of the product in which the contested design is intended to be incorporated or to which it is intended to be applied is incorrect in law.

Part (b)

The General Court infringed Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, in conjunction with Article 5 thereof, in holding that a Community design cannot be regarded as new for the purposes of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 if an identical design has been made available to the public before the dates mentioned in that provision, even if that older design was incorporated in or applied to a product other than the product or products indicated in the application pursuant to Article 36(2) of Regulation No 6/2002.

Part (c)

The General Court infringed Articles 10, 19 and 36(6) of Regulation No 6/2002 in finding that those articles imply that the holder of a registered design right can prevent third parties not having its consent from using on any sort of product the design which it holds and any design which does not produce on the informed user a different overall impression.

Ground 2

In taking the view that the limits of the review of legality had been exceeded, as it did in the last sentence of paragraph 137 of its judgment, the General Court infringed Article 61 of Regulation No 6/2002.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 17 July 2015 — Denis Malcorps and Others v Vlaams Gewest; other party: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen

(Case C-388/15)

(2015/C 354/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Denis Malcorps, Myriam Rijssens, Guido Van De Walle

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Intervener: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen

Question referred

The Regional Development Implementation Plan (GRUP) contains planning rules under which, in mandatory terms, the development of areas (more specifically, for seaport- and water-related businesses, for a logistics park, for waterway infrastructure and for traffic and transport infrastructure) which have ecological features (areas hosting a natural habitat type or the habitat of a species for which the special area of conservation concerned was designated) which make a contribution to the conservation objectives of the special areas of conservation concerned, is possible only after the creation of sustainable habitats in ecological core areas (designated within the Natura 2000 area) and following a decision by the Flemish Government preceded by an opinion from the Flemish administrative body responsible for nature conservation — which should form part of an application for a planning permit with a view to the development of the aforementioned facilities — that the sustainable creation of the ecological core areas has been successful.

Can those planning rules with their envisaged positive developments of ecological core areas be taken into account in the determination, under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (1), of potentially significant effects and/or in the making of an appropriate assessment, or can those planning rules be regarded only as ‘compensatory measures’ within the meaning of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, in so far as the conditions laid down in that provision have been satisfied?

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).
2)

Is it to be assumed that there is only to be an entitlement to payment of an allowance in lieu of leave if the employee who was unable due to incapacity to work to use up his leave entitlement immediately before the termination of his employment relationship (a) without unnecessary delay (and therefore in principle before the date of termination of the employment relationship) made his employer aware of his incapacity to work (e.g. due to illness) and (b) without unnecessary delay (and therefore in principle before the date of termination of the employment relationship) provided proof (e.g. through a doctor’s sick note) of his incapacity to work (e.g. due to illness)? If not, is a provision of national law which lays down that there is only to be an entitlement to an allowance in lieu of leave if the employee who was unable due to incapacity to work to use up his leave entitlement immediately before the termination of his employment relationship (a) without unnecessary delay (and therefore in principle before the date of termination of the employment relationship) made his employer aware of his incapacity to work (e.g. due to illness) and (b) without unnecessary delay (and therefore in principle before the date of termination of the employment relationship) provided proof (e.g. through a doctor’s sick note) of his incapacity to work (e.g. due to illness) compatible with Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC?