ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/12

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Cabinet d’Orthopédie Stainier SPRL v État belge

(Case C-592/16)

(2017/C 038/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cabinet d’Orthopédie Stainier SPRL

Defendant: État belge

Questions 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 assessed, 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);

…?’
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 28 October 2016 — État belge v Biologie Dr Antoine SPRL

(Case C-548/16)

(2017/C 030/22)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: État belge

Respondent: Biologie Dr Antoine SPRL

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 1978 L 222, 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);
In the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in finding that the element ‘OCEAN’ was distinctive

The General Court misinterpreted the evidence adduced in the case and assessed it illogically.

In addition, the General Court failed to apply the relevant case-law, namely, the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the judgments in Case C-479/12 (2) (the General Court assessed the evidence adduced too strictly in the light of the difficulty in discharging the burden of proof) and C-24/05 P (3) (it disregarded the impression of the relevant consumer).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 December 2016 — A/S Bevola, Jens W. Trock ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-650/16)

(2017/C 063/25)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A/S Bevola, Jens W. Trock ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Question referred

Does Article 49 TFEU preclude a national taxation scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which it is possible to make deductions for losses in domestic branches, whilst it is not possible to make deductions for losses in branches situated in other Member States, including in conditions equivalent to those in the EU Court of Justice’s judgment in Marks & Spencer, C-446/03, (1) paragraphs 55 and 56, unless the group has elected international joint taxation on the terms as set out in the main proceedings?

(1) (EU:C:2005:763)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/20

Appeal brought on 20 June 2016 by Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz e.V. and Horst Giesen against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2016 in Case T-595/15, Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz e.V. and Horst Giesen v European Commission

(Case C-343/16 P)

(2017/C 053/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz e.V. and Horst Giesen (represented by: Dr. P. Brockmann, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 12 January 2017 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
(1)

Does a payment system, to which the Access Obligation provided for in Article 35(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 (1) (‘PSD2’) would otherwise not apply, by virtue of Article 35(2)(b) PSD2, render itself subject to that Obligation (i) by entering into co-brand arrangements with co-brand partners who do not themselves provide payment services on that system in relation to that co-branded product offering and/or (ii) by using an agent to act on its behalf in providing payment services?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Lille (France) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Adil Hassan v Préfet du Pas-de-Calais

(Case C-647/16)

(2017/C 070/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Lille

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Adil Hassan

Defendant: Préfet du Pas-de-Calais

Question referred

Do the provisions of Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 (1) preclude the competent authorities of the Member State which has submitted, to a Member State which it, by application of the criteria set out in the Regulation, considers to be the State responsible, a request to take charge or take back a third-country national or a stateless person who has submitted an application for international protection in respect of which a final decision has not yet been taken, or another person referred to in Article 18(1)(c) or (d) of the Regulation, from taking a transfer decision and notifying it to the person concerned before the requested State has accepted that request to take charge or to take the person back?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 95/3

Appeal brought on 4 August 2016 by Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Cases T-510/14 and T-536/14: STAYWELL HOSPITALITY GROUP AND SHERATON INTERNATIONAL IP v EUIPO — SHERATON INTERNATIONAL IP AND STAYWELL HOSPITALITY GROUP (PARK REGIS)

(Case C-440/16 P)

(2017/C 095/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd (represented by: D. Farnsworth, solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Sheraton International IP LLC

By order of 12 January 2017 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/15

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 27 December 2016 — CORPORATE COMPANIES s.r.o. v Ministerstvo financí ČR

(Case C-676/16)

(2017/C 086/18)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CORPORATE COMPANIES s.r.o.

Defendant: Ministerstvo financí ČR

Question referred

Do persons who, by way of their business activity, sell companies already entered in the Register of Companies and formed for the purposes of sale (‘ready-made companies’), whose sale is realised by the transfer of a holding in the subsidiary company which they are selling, fall within the scope of Article 2(1), point 3(c) of Directive 2005/60/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing in conjunction with Article 3(7)(a) thereof?

(1) OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15.
1.

Can the holder of a supplementary protection certificate that was issued to it for the Federal Republic of Germany rely on the specific mechanism to prevent the importation of products into the Federal Republic of Germany from the accession States the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania … and Croatia (Annex IV to the 2003 Act of Accession, OJ 2003 L 236, p. 797, as amended in OJ 2004 L 126, p. 4, for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic; Part I of Annex V to the 2005 Act of Accession, OJ 2005 L 157, p. 268, for Romania and Bulgaria; Annex IV to the 2011 Act of Accession, OJ 2012 L 112, p. 60, for Croatia) if the supplementary protection certificate was applied for in the Federal Republic of Germany at a point in time at which the laws for obtaining such a supplementary protection certificate already existed in the respective accession States but could not be applied for by, or issued to, the holder of the supplementary protection certificate issued for the Federal Republic of Germany because the basic patent required for the issuing of the supplementary protection certificate did not exist in the accession State?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/26

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2016 — Junek Europ-Vertrieb GmbH v Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-642/16)

(2017/C 104/39)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Junek Europ-Vertrieb GmbH

Defendant: Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG

Questions referred

Must Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of the mark can oppose further commercialisation of a medical device imported from another Member State in its original internal and external packaging, to which the importer has affixed an additional external label, unless

— it is established that reliance on trade-mark rights by the proprietor in order to oppose the marketing of the overstickered product under that trade mark would contribute to an artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States;

— it is shown that the new labelling cannot adversely affect the original condition of the product inside the packaging;

— the packaging states clearly who overstickered the product and the name of the manufacturer;

— the presentation of the overstickered product is not such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and of its proprietor; thus, the label must not be defective, of poor quality, or untidy; and

— the importer gives notice to the trade mark proprietor before the overstickered product is placed on the market, and, on demand, provides him with a specimen of that product.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 78, 24.3.2009, p. 1).
2.

Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee of a betting and gambling service to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Bluebell Partners Limited v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

(Case C-657/16)

(2017/C 121/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bluebell Partners Limited

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Question referred

Is the proper application of the first and second subparagraphs of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, (1) in the light of the general principles laid down in Article 3(1) thereof, and in the light of the proper application of the general principles relating to the protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality, reasonableness, transparency and non-discrimination, prevented by a provision of national law such as Article 106(3)(d)(2) of Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 (consolidating all provisions in the field of financial intermediation within the meaning of Articles 8 and 21 of Law No 52 of 6 February 1996), as subsequently amended, and Article 47 octies of the Decision of the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa — Consob No 11971 of 14 May 1999 (Order implementing Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 laying down rules applicable to offerees), as subsequently amended, in so far as those provisions, in authorising Consob to increase the price of the takeover bid as referred to in Article 106 where collusion is found to have taken place between, on the one hand, the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it and, on the other hand, one or more sellers, simply refer to the criterion of the ‘price ascertained’ without specifying the parameters and criteria for such a finding?

(1) OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/36

Appeal brought on 25 January 2017 by Liam Jenkinson against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 November 2016 in Case T-602/15 Liam Jenkinson v European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-43/17 P)

(2017/C 104/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Liam Jenkinson (represented by: N. de Montigny, J.-N. Louis, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Eulex Kosovo

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the order of the General Court of 9 November 2016 in Case T-602/15 in so far as it dismisses the action brought by the appellant and orders him to pay the costs of the proceedings;

— adjudicate on the action;

— order the defendants to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant disputes the General Court’s having declared itself to have jurisdiction in relation only to a dispute based on the latest fixed-term contract signed by the appellant.

He also disputes, even supposing the General Court’s reasoning in that regard were correct, quod non, the fact that the General Court did not rule on several of his requests based on the termination of the contractual relationship at issue and thus on the latest fixed-term contract. The illegality of the order under appeal is apparent from the conciseness of the reasoning, which is so succinct that it does not make it possible to understand how the General Court could, without analysing the merits of the case, conclude that it had no jurisdiction, with the exception of the dispute relating to the latest fixed term contract, solely on the basis of the existence of an arbitration clause even though the appellant disputed the validity and legality of such a clause.

The appellant also disputes the failure to take into account his entire argument as to the existence of wrongful conduct on the part of the institutions relating to the lack of legal framework offering the applicant and all the personnel of rule of law missions established by the Union guarantees that their most fundamental social rights will be respected, including the right of effective access to a court and right to a fair trial.

In support of his appeal, the appellant consequently invokes the General Court’s infringement:

— of applicable EU law for the determination of the law applicable to contractual disputes;

— of provisions of Belgian employment law;

— of minimum requirements on fixed-term work applicable at Community level;

— of the rights enshrined by the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

— of the obligation to state reasons;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/21

Appeal brought on 5 January 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-155/14, ANKO v European Commission

(Case C-7/17 P)

(2017/C 063/29)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: Stavroula Paliou, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 in Case T-155/14 and refer the case back to the General Court to give a ruling on the substance.

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the judgment of 27 April 2016 of the General Court in Case T-155/14 makes findings of law which are contrary to principles of EU law and challenges those findings by means of this appeal.

The appellant considers that the judgment under appeal should be set aside:

i. First , with respect to the provisions of substantive law to be applied, on grounds that relate to an error in law and procedural irregularities which vitiate the reasoning in that judgment.

ii. Second , on grounds that relate to an error in law, with regard to the rules that govern, in relation to the claim, the matters to be proved and the burden of proof and, in relation to the counterclaim, the allocation of the burden of proof.

Within that framework, the grounds of appeal are the following:

I. In connection with the error in law and procedural irregularities: 1) First ground of appeal: Wholly deficient statement of reasons. 2) Second ground of appeal: Error in law and contradictory reasoning.
2.

If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, does Article 20(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 include the jurisdiction of the court hearing the original action even when the employer’s counter-claim is not based on a claim originating with the employer but on a claim originating with another party (which is, at the same time, an employer of the same employee under a parallel employment contract), and the counter-claim is based on an assignment-of-claim agreement, concluded by the employer and the party from which the claim originally derives, after the date on which the original action was brought by the employee?
If the answer to Question 1 is to the effect that an influence ensured through shareholdings and voting rights is not required:

Does it constitute a ‘decision regarding collective redundancies’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 2(4) of Directive 98/59/EC if the controlling undertaking imposes requirements on the employer such that it is economically necessary for the employer to effect collective redundancies?
1.

Does ‘indirect commercial use’ of a registered geographical indication of a spirit drink in accordance with Article 16(a) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 (1) require that the registered geographical indication be used in identical or phonetically and/or visually similar form, or is it sufficient that the disputed element evokes in the relevant public some kind of association with the registered geographical indication or the geographical area? If the latter is sufficient: When determining whether there is any ‘indirect commercial use’, does the context in which the disputed element is embedded then also play a role, or can that context not counteract indirect commercial use of the registered geographical indication, even if the disputed element is accompanied by an indication of the true origin of the product?
D.

If the answer to question C is yes, is Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU compatible with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention, as it introduces a ground for withdrawing refugee status for which no provision is made in the Geneva Convention, and for which no basis can be found in the Convention?