ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-322/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2018 — Schiaffini Travel SpA v Comune di Latina

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2018 — Schiaffini Travel SpA v Comune di Latina

(Case C-322/18)

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Schiaffini Travel SpA

Defendant: Comune di Latina

Questions referred

1. Does Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 ( 1 ) (in particular, the prohibition, laid down in subparagraphs (b) and (d), on the participation of internal operators in extra moenia tendering procedures) apply equally where a contract has been awarded prior to the entry into force of that regulation?

2. May a legal person governed by public law which has been directly awarded a contract by a State authority for the provision of local transport services and which has a direct relationship with the State authority in terms of organisation and control and whose capital is owned by the State (either wholly or in part, together with other public entities) be regarded, in the abstract, as an ‘internal operator’ within the meaning of the regulation and, as the case may be, by analogy with the case-law on the subject of ‘in house provision’?

3. In the case of the direct award of a contract for the provision of services falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, if, after that award, the State authority in question (while itself retaining sole power to award concessions) establishes a public administrative authority that has power to organise the services in question but does not have ‘similar control’ over the contractor, does that fact take the award in question outside the scope of the rules in Article 5(2) of the regulation?

4. If the date of expiry of a directly awarded contract falls after the end of the 30-year period ending on 3 December 2039 (that period commencing on the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007) does that render the award inconsistent with the principles laid down in the combined provisions of Articles 5 and 8(3) of the regulation, or may such an irregularity be regarded as automatically remedied, for all legal purposes, by an implied shortening of the length of the contract by operation of law (Article 8(3)), so as to fall within the 30-year period?

( 1 ) Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).
Case C-344/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 25 May 2018 — ISS Facility Services NV v Sonia Govaerts, Euroclean NV

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 25 May 2018 — ISS Facility Services NV v Sonia Govaerts, Euroclean NV

(Case C-344/18)

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: ISS Facility Services NV

Respondents: Sonia Govaerts, Euroclean NV

Question referred

Must Article 3(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC ( 1 ) of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where there is a simultaneous transfer of various parts of an undertaking within the meaning of Article 1(1) of that directive, which parts are transferred to various transferees, the rights and obligations arising from the employment contract, as it existed at the time of the transfer, of a worker who was employed in each of the transferred parts, will be transferred to each of the transferees, albeit in proportion to the extent of the employment of the aforementioned worker in the part of the undertaking acquired by each transferee,

or must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the aforementioned rights and obligations are transferred in their entirety to the transferee of the part of the undertaking in which the aforementioned worker was principally employed,

or as meaning that, if the provisions of the Directive cannot be interpreted in any of the aforementioned ways, there is no transfer to any transferee of the rights and obligations arising from the employment contract of the aforementioned worker, which is also the case if it is not possible to determine separately the extent of the worker’s employment in each of the transferred parts of the undertaking?

( 1 ) OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.
Case C-373/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Penafiel (Portugal) lodged on 7 June 2018 — Prosa — Produtos e Serviços Agrícolas v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Penafiel (Portugal) lodged on 7 June 2018 — Prosa — Produtos e Serviços Agrícolas v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-373/18)

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Penafiel

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Prosa — Produtos e Serviços Agrícolas

Respondent: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

Is paragraph 26.1 of the General Schedule of Stamp Duties, in the version resulting from Article 3 of Decree-Law No 322-B/2001 of 14 December 2001, pursuant to which stamp duty is to be levied on the incorporation of a capital company (in particular, a public limited company) whose share capital is paid entirely in cash, contrary to Article 7(1) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC ( 1 ) of 17 July 1969, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC ( 2 ) of 10 June 1985?

( 1 ) Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 1969 L 249, p. 25).

( 2 ) OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23.
2.

In the alternative, if the Court of Justice considers that the option of excluding the tenderer is one of the options open to the Member State, does the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5 of the EU Treaty, referred to in recital 101 of Directive 2014/24/EU and established as a general principle of EU law by the Court of Justice, preclude national legislation, such as Article 80(5) of Legislative Decree No 50 of 2016, which provides that, where a ground for excluding a designated subcontractor is established during the tendering procedure, a tendering economic operator is to be excluded in all cases, including where there are other subcontractors that have not been excluded and satisfy the requirements for the provision of the services to be subcontracted, or where the tendering economic operator declares that it will not subcontract as it satisfies the requirements for the provision of the services on its own?
Case C-366/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 5 June 2018 — José Manuel Ortiz Mesonero v Unión Temporal de Empresas Luz Madrid Centro (comprising the commercial companies SICE, S.A., URBALUX, S.A., IMES.A.PI, S.A., EXTRALUX, S.A., and CITELUM IBÉRICA, S.A.)

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 5 June 2018 — José Manuel Ortiz Mesonero v Unión Temporal de Empresas Luz Madrid Centro (comprising the commercial companies SICE, S.A., URBALUX, S.A., IMES.A.PI, S.A., EXTRALUX, S.A., and CITELUM IBÉRICA, S.A.)

(Case C-366/18)

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: José Manuel Ortiz Mesonero

Defendant: Unión Temporal de Empresas Luz Madrid Centro (comprising the commercial companies SICE, S.A., URBALUX, S.A., IMES.A.PI, S.A., EXTRALUX, S.A., and CITELUM IBÉRICA, S.A.)

Question referred

Do Articles 8, 10 and 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 23 and Article 33(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Article 1 and Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/54, ( 1 ) all taken in conjunction with Directive 2010/18 ( 2 ) implementing the Framework Agreement on parental leave, preclude a rule of national law such as Article 37(6) of the Workers’ Statute, which makes it a requirement that in order to exercise the right to reconcile family life and working life so as to be able to care directly for children or family members for whom they are responsible, workers must in all cases reduce their ordinary working hours, with a consequent proportional reduction in salary?

( 1 ) 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 (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).

( 2 ) Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC (OJ 2010 L 68, p. 13).
2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 to be interpreted as meaning that a repayment action between members of an unregistered non-marital partnership fall within the scope of the rights in property arising out of a relationship deemed by the law applicable to such relationship to have comparable (legal) effects to marriage?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 12 January 2018 by Acquafarm S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 November 2017 in Case T-458/16, Acquafarm v Commission

(Case C-40/18 P)

(2018/C 301/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Acquafarm S.L. (represented by: A. Pérez Moreno, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 12 July 2018, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Acquafarm S.L. to pay its own costs.
2.

Should Article 2(a)(iii) of, in conjunction with Annex I, Part B, to, Directive 2011/96/EU be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘corporation tax in the United Kingdom’ also covers the corporation tax that has to be paid in Gibraltar?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2018 — Finanzamt A v B

(Case C-388/18)

(2018/C 328/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt A

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: B

Question referred

In cases involving the margin scheme provided for in Article 311 et seq. of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) must the provision contained in point 1 of the first sentence of Article 288 of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of assessing the turnover relevant under that provision, where this arises from a supply of goods as referred to in Article 314 of Directive 2006/112/EC, in accordance with Article 315 of Directive 2006/112/EC, account is to be taken of the difference between the selling price charged and the purchase price (profit margin)?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
3.

Can the judgment by which the court of the Member State which opened the insolvency proceedings authorises the trustee in bankruptcy to bring, in another Member State, an action falling, in principle, within the jurisdiction of the court which opened the proceedings, have the effect of imposing the jurisdiction of that other State, in so far as, inter alia, that judgment could be classified as a judgment concerning the course of insolvency proceedings within the meaning of Article 25(1) of Regulation [No 1346/2000] (1) which may, on that basis, be recognised with no further formalities, pursuant to that article?
1.

Must Articles 5 to 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (‘the Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are rescheduled may be treated in the same way as passengers whose flights are cancelled, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, and that they may therefore rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the Regulation where the air carrier informs passengers of the rescheduling the day before the originally scheduled departure date and, as a consequence of the change, passengers suffer a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours compared with the originally scheduled arrival time, that is, they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier?
5.

Even if, in the light of the above principles, the (monitoring) authorities which are authorised by the law of the Member State to identify and investigate public procurement infringements of their own motion, and which are under a duty to defend the public interest may be granted the power referred to in questions 1 to 4, must Article 41(1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, recitals 2, 25, 27 and 36 of Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts, Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts and, in this context, the principle of legal certainty, as a general principle of EU law, and the requirement for effective and rapid remedies against decisions by contracting authorities in public procurement cases, and the proportionality principle, be interpreted as meaning that the national courts may assess whether the period of time that has elapsed between the occurrence of the infringement, the expiry of the period previously established for bringing an action for review, and the commencement of the proceedings to investigate the infringement, is reasonable and proportionate, and may use this as a basis for determining the legal consequences of the nullity of the contested decision or other consequences established by the law of the Member State?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 19 July 2018 — ER v Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria

(Case C-472/18)

(2018/C 373/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: ER

Respondent: Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria

Question referred

Are a provision in a collective agreement and an employer’s practice, pursuant to which, for the purposes of remuneration and promotion, the length of service of a part-time female employee whose working hours are ‘distributed vertically’ over the whole year is to be calculated solely on the basis of time actually worked, contrary to Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work [annexed to] Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997, (1) and to Articles 2(1)(b) and 14(1) 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 (recast)? (2)

(1) Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).

(2) 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 (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 10 April 2018 by Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2018 in Case T-795/16: Krasnyiy oktyabr v EUIPO

(Case C-248/18 P)

(2018/C 392/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO (represented by: O. Spuhler, M. Geitz, Rechtsanwälte, J. Stock, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’

By order of 11 September 2018 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Action brought on 30 August 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-556/18)

(2018/C 381/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(7), read in conjunction with Articles 13(1), 14 and 15(1) of 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, (1) by failing to comply with its public information and consultation obligation to review and update river basin management plans and by failing to adopt, publish and communicate to the Commission the revised and updated river basin management plans for the river basin districts of Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, Tenerife, La Gomera, La Palma and el Hierro.

— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with Article 25 of Directive 2000/60/EC, that directive entered into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal, namely on 22 December 2000. As a result, the river basin management plans had to be published, in accordance with Article 13(6) of the directive, by 22 December 2009 at the latest and, in accordance with Article 13(7) thereof, be reviewed and updated for the first time by 22 December 2015 at the latest.

The Commission is of the view that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the articles cited above of Directive 2000/60/EC by failing to comply with its public information and consultation obligation to review and update river basin management plans and by failing to adopt, publish and communicate to the Commission the revised and updated river basin management plans for the river basin districts of Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, Tenerife, La Gomera, La Palma and el Hierro within the two-month period set out in its reasoned opinion of 5 October 2017.

(1) OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 9 July 2018 — WA v Münchener Hypothekenbank eG

(Case C-448/18)

(2018/C 408/48)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WA

Defendant: Münchener Hypothekenbank eG

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 6 September 2018.
2.

Must Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility be interpreted as meaning that the facts set out by a party to proceedings (namely: the child was born in France, her father is a French citizen, her blood relations in France include two sisters and a brother, a niece (her sister’s daughter), her paternal grandfather, her father’s current partner and their minor daughter, whereas she has no family ties on her mother’s side in Romania, she attends French school, her upbringing and mentality have always been French, the language spoken at home between the parents and by the parents to the child has always been French) are factors indicating that the child has a particular connection with France, and must the national court therefore declare that the French courts are better placed to hear the case?
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, formerly nkt cables GmbH, NKT A/S, formerly NKT Holding A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-447/14: NKT Verwaltungs and NKT v Commission

(Case C-607/18 P)

(2018/C 427/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: NKT Verwaltungs GmbH, formerly nkt cables GmbH, NKT A/S, formerly NKT Holding A/S (represented by: B. Creve, advocaat, M. Kofmann, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal in whole or in part;

— annul the decision at issue (1) in whole or in part;

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

— order a measure of organisation; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea: The General Court erroneously determined the territorial scope of the infringement.

Second plea: The General Court committed errors in law when assessing the scope of the SCI (2) and the scope of NKT’s participation in and awareness of the SCI.

Third plea: The General Court committed errors in law when holding that the appellants’ rights of defence had not been infringed.

Fourth plea: The General Court committed errors in law when rejecting the appellants’ plea for an annulment or reduction of the fine.

(1) Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

(2) Single and continuous infringement.