ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3.

If the answer to question 1 is that the possibility of third parties providing the Services direct to the tenant is relevant, is it merely a contributory factor in determining whether the Services are either a single, indivisible economic supply, which it would be artificial to split or an ancillary supply to the Principal Supply, or is it a determining factor? If it is merely a contributory factor or if it is not relevant at all, what other factors are relevant in determining whether the Services are an ancillary supply? In particular how relevant is it whether the Services are performed in or in respect of the demised premises which are the subject matter of the letting or in other parts of the building?
1.

On a proper interpretation of Article 4a(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006, as inserted by Council Regulation (EC) No 1261/2007 (1), does the commitment to cease delivery of a certain amount of quota beet to the undertaking with which he has concluded a delivery contract in the preceding marketing year mean a unilateral declaration of the grower that he will not deliver sugar beet in the marketing year 2008/2009, or does that commitment mean the written termination of the contractual relationship of the grower with the sugar company concerning deliveries of sugar beet for the said marketing year?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 331/9

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Alba (Romania) lodged on 22 August 2011 — Corpul Național al Polițiștilor, acting on behalf of its members serving with the Alba Inspectorate of Police v Ministerul Administrației și Internelor (MAI), Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române (IGPR), Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Alba (IPJ)

(Case C-434/11)

2011/C 331/14

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Alba

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Corpul Național al Polițiștilor, acting on behalf of its members serving with the Alba Inspectorate of Police

Defendants: Ministerul Administrației și Internelor (MAI), Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române (IGPR), Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Alba (IPJ)

Question referred

Must the provisions of Articles 17(1), 20 and 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding reductions in remuneration such as those imposed by the Romanian State under Law No 118/2010 and Law No 285/2010?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 340/8

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 26 August 2011 — CHS Tour Services GmbH v Team 4 Travel GmbH

(Case C-435/11)

2011/C 340/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CHS Tour Services GmbH

Defendant: Team 4 Travel GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 5 of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Directives 84/450/EEC, 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive), to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of misleading commercial practices within the meaning of Article 5(4) of that directive, separate examination of the criteria of Article 5(2)(a) of the directive is inadmissible?

(1) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’); OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 331/8

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 16 August 2011 — Katja Ettwein v Finanzamt Konstanz

(Case C-425/11)

2011/C 331/12

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Katja Ettwein

Defendant: Finanzamt Konstanz

Question referred

Are the provisions of the Agreement of 21 June 1999 (1) between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons (BGBl. II 2001, 810 et seq.), which was passed as a Law by the Bundestag on 2 September (BGBl. II 2001, 810) and entered into force on 1 June (‘the Agreement on free movement’), in particular Articles 1, 2, 11, 16 and 21 thereof and Articles 9, 13 and 15 of Annex I thereto, to be interpreted as precluding a rule under which spouses who live in Switzerland and are subject to taxation in the Federal Republic of Germany on their entire taxable income cannot be granted joint assessment, regard being had to the ‘splitting’ regime?

(1) Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Final Act — Joint Declarations — Information relating to the entry into force of the seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation in the sectors free movement of persons, air and land transport, public procurement, scientific and technological cooperation, mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, and trade in agricultural products, OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.
2.

Do Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights preclude national legislation which, in the case of the politically-motivated conviction of an individual by a decision contrary to law, allows that individual’s right to compensation for the non-material damage suffered to be limited?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/25

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland) lodged on 3 October 2011 — Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö TSN ry v Terveyspalvelualan Liitto ry, Mehiläinen Oy

(Case C-512/11)

2011/C 347/35

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Työtuomioistuin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö TSN ry

Defendants: Terveyspalvelualan Liitto ry, Mehiläinen Oy

Question referred

Do Directive 2006/54/EC (1) 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 and Council Directive 92/85/EEC (2) of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding preclude national provisions of a collective agreement, or the interpretation of those provisions, under which an employee moving from unpaid child-care leave to maternity leave is not paid remuneration during maternity leave in accordance with the collective agreement?

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

(2) OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1.
3.

If Question 2 is answered affirmatively: can the requirements laid down in the directive relating to fair compensation for exceptions or limitations to the right of reproduction under Article 5(2) and (3) of the directive, having regard to the fundamental right to equal treatment under Article 20 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights, be fulfilled also where the appropriate reward must be paid not by the manufacturers, importers and traders of the PCs but by the manufacturers, importers and traders of another device or several other devices of a chain of devices capable of making the relevant reproductions?
3.

In the light of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112, are national legal provisions such as those laid down in Articles 79(3) and 80(2) of the Law on VAT and a tax practice such as that adopted in the main proceedings permissible, under which the input tax deduction made on the acquisition of goods which are subsequently stolen must be adjusted, if it is assumed that the State has not made use of the power afforded to it to provide expressly for adjustments to the input tax deducted in the case of theft?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 10 November 2011 — Mariana Irimie v Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-565/11)

(2012/C 25/66)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mariana Irimie

Defendants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Question referred

Can the principle of the effectiveness, equivalence and proportionality of remedies in relation to infringements of Community law to which individuals are subjected as the result of the application of legislation which does not conform to Community law arising from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the right to property laid down in Article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be regarded as precluding provisions of national law which limit the amount of damage which could be recovered by an individual who has suffered an infringement of his rights?
1.

The General Court erred in concluding that Deltafina acted in breach of its duty to cooperate by failing to inform the Commission of the disclosure of information concerning its cooperation with the Commission. It should have ruled, instead, on the issue whether, in the light of the agreement reached concerning the ‘rules of the game’ at the meeting between the Commission and Deltafina on 14 March 2002, the Commission was entitled to find that Deltafina had failed to have regard to its duty to cooperate on the basis that it disclosed that it had applied for immunity at the meeting held at APTI’s offices on 4 April 2002. In so doing, the General Court substituted itself for the parties by defining ex post the conditions governing Delatafina’s duty to cooperate, failed to rule on the principal plea relied on by Deltafina and infringed its rights of defence.
3.

If the reply to the second question is in the affirmative: How are Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, in particular Articles 10 and 34, and Article 31, and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 to be interpreted where there are concurrent benefits, with set-off, from the social security system for covering the risk of need for long-term care, that is to say, in the present case, entitlement to a combination benefit of German care allowance (choice between benefit in kind and cash benefit) and entitlement to Austrian care allowance, more specifically: 3.1. Is only the cash benefit granted by Germany, the State of residence, or only the care benefit in kind or the entire care benefit (total of care allowance and value of care benefit in kind) to be set off against the Austrian care allowance under the BPGG which is to be exported, and is regard to be had to the differing price levels in the Member States concerned? 3.2. Is it necessary, when effecting the required set-off, to consider whether the State of residence grants care benefits with equivalent cover or are such care benefits from the State of residence to be left out of account when effecting set-off where those benefits are provided for only in the State of residence by the social security system to cover the risk of need for long term care? 3.3. Must the Social Court hearing the action brought by the person needing long-term care examine the substantive conditions for set-off if the defendant institution has not initiated a procedure within the meaning of Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009, has made no submissions concerning the question of benefits with equivalent cover and, in particular, has omitted to inform the person needing long-term care of the prohibition of concurrent benefits?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/8

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 14 November 2011 — Gas Natural SDG, S.A. v Endesa, S.A., Iberdrola, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Spanish State

(Case C-567/11)

2012/C 39/14

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Gas Natural SDG, S.A.

Other parties: Endesa, S.A., Iberdrola, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Spanish State

Question referred

May Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC be interpreted as not preventing application of national legislative measures of the kind under review in these proceedings, the purpose and effect of which are to reduce remuneration for the activity of electricity production by an amount equivalent to the value of the greenhouse gas emission allowances allocated free of charge during the relevant period?

(1) OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/13

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), lodged on 16 November 2011 — Novartis AG v Actavis Deutschland GmbH & Co KG, Actavis Ltd.

(Case C-574/11)

2012/C 32/24

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Novartis AG

Defendants: Actavis Deutschland GmbH & Co KG, Actavis Ltd.

Question referred

Are Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the protection conferred by a supplementary protection certificate, which has been granted for a single active ingredient (in this case, Valsartan), extends to a form which contains a combination of active ingredients featuring that single active ingredient (in this case, Valsartan + Hydrochlorothiazide)?

(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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 58/5

Appeal brought on 19 December 2011 by Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2011 in Case T-421/10 Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and María Constantina Sotelo Ares

(Case C-649/11 P)

2012/C 58/07

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, Abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and María Constantina Sotelo Ares

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— declare the appeal admissible;

— set aside in full the judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 in Case T-421/10;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. Infringement by the General Court of the duty to state reasons and, in particular, of Article 36 of Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 53 thereof.

2. Infringement of the rights of defence of Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega and of the right to a fair hearing and, in particular, of Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

3. Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 (1) of 26 February 2009.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Secondly, the Appellant argues that the Contested Judgment should be annulled because I either deprives Mindo of its right of access to the court (and consequently of its rights to have its case fully reviewed) or, should the Contested Judgment be interpreted as requiring Mindo and Alliance One to have jointly lodged the application at first instance, it breaches Mindo's and Alliance One's right of defense.
2.

Specifically, the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the ‘Court of Justice’) is requested in relation to the following questions: (1) Whether it is necessary for the Courts of State A to await the outcome of an anticipated application to and decision by the Courts of State B as to whether or not the Courts of State B should stay or dismiss the second proceedings pursuant to Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 prior to the Courts of State A taking a decision on whether to stay or dismiss the third proceedings; (2) If it is not necessary for the Courts of State A to await the outcome of an anticipated application to and decision by the Courts of State B as to whether or not the Courts of State B should stay or dismiss the second proceedings pursuant to Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 prior to the Courts of State A taking a decision on whether to stay or dismiss the third proceedings, whether the Courts of State A are entitled to have regard to the fact of the first proceedings in deciding whether to stay or dismiss the third proceedings; (3) In the event that the Courts of State B decide that they do have jurisdiction over the second proceedings, whether the Courts of State A are entitled to have regard to the fact of the first proceedings in deciding whether to stay or dismiss the third proceedings pursuant to Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001; (4) Whether the fact that the third proceedings could have been (but were not) maintained as a counterclaim in the first proceedings by the Plaintiff in the third proceedings is a material factor and, if so, the proper considerations which the Courts of State A should afford to that factor in their determination as to whether they should decline jurisdiction over, or stay, the third proceedings pursuant to Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001.
(b)

the presence of provisions which de facto guarantee the maintenance of commercial positions acquired at the end of a procedure which unlawfully excluded some of the operators (as, for example, the prohibition on new concession holders from installing their counters at less than a given distance from those already existing; and
2.

Are the principles of fiscal neutrality, proportionality and of legitimate expectations infringed by a practice in the administration and in the courts, under which one party (the person named in the invoice as the buyer) is refused the right to deduct input VAT by means of a tax assessment notice, whilst in relation to the other party (the issuer of the invoice) no adjustment of the VAT entered on the invoice is carried out, again by means of a tax assessment notice, specifically in the following cases: — the issuer of the invoice did not submit any documents for the purposes of the tax assessment conducted in relation to him; — the issuer of the invoice submitted documents during the tax assessment procedure but his suppliers did not submit any evidence or on the basis of the evidence submitted it is not possible to establish that the goods or services were actually supplied; — during the tax assessment procedure to which the issuer of the invoices was subjected, the supplies at issue in the chain were not reviewed?
4.

Under Article 19(9) of the MiFID Directive, does the mere fact that a credit institution offers a complex financial instrument linked to a mortgage loan that has been concluded with the institution itself or with a different institution constitute sufficient cause to exclude application of the obligation to carry out the suitability and appropriateness tests provided for by the said Article 19 which the investment institution must undertake in the case of a retail investor?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/8

Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Regione autonoma della Sardegna against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/08 Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission

(Case C-631/11 P)

2012/C 118/13

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Regione autonoma della Sardegna (represented by: A. Fantozzi, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Selene di Alessandra Cannas Sas and Others

Form of order sought

— Set aside and/or vary the judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 in Joined Cases T-394/08, T-408/08, T-453/08 and T-454/085;

— Annul the Commission Decision of 3 July 2008 (State aid C1/2004 Italy — SG-Greffe (2008) D/204339) concerning the aid scheme ‘Regional Law No 9 of 1998 — Misapplication of aid N 272/98’.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two grounds in support of its appeal.

The first ground of appeal concerns breach of Article 107(3) TFEU. In particular, the appellant alleges breach and misapplication of the principle of the necessity of aid and of the principle of the incentive effect, as a result of an excessively formalistic approach, which is contrary to the principle that the substance must take precedence over the form, and failure to take account of specific details relating to issues of transitional law which characterise the case in question.

The second ground of appeal concerns breach of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations and breach of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. (1) The bases of this ground of appeal arise from the specific intertemporal circumstances of the case, which were disregarded in the judgment under appeal. The General Court went beyond what is prescribed by the relevant case-law, requiring of the economic operator a degree of diligence that is not possible in practice, given that the requirement that an application for aid be made before work commences is a Community rule which was introduced at exactly the same time as the facts of the case and, therefore, the undertaking could not have been aware of it at the time at which it made its decision.

(1) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.
1.

Does the refusal of the Romanian tax authorities to grant a request for reimbursement of excise duty constitute an infringement of European Union law (Articles 7 and 22 of Directive 92/12/EEC, (1) and the preamble thereto) in the case where: (a) the trader requesting reimbursement of excise duty furnished proof that all the technical conditions laid down in Romanian law governing the admissibility of requests for reimbursement were satisfied, and in particular those relating to: (i) proof of payment of excise duty in Romania; and (ii) proof that the products subject to excise duty were dispatched to another Member State; (b) according to the requirements of Romanian tax law (Article 1926 of the Tax Code, Paragraph 184 of the implementing provisions referred to in Government Decision No 44/2004, and Annex 11 to Title VII of the Tax Code), certain documents which had to accompany the request for reimbursement could be furnished only after the products subject to excise duty had been delivered in another Member State; (c) Romanian tax law (Article 184(4) of the implementing provisions, which refers to Article 135 of the Code of Tax Procedure) provides for a general period of five years for each request for refund/reimbursement?