ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-173/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 6 March 2018 — FS v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 6 March 2018 — FS v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-173/18)

Referring court

Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FS

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Question referred

Must EU law be interpreted to the effect that the tax authority may not, when carrying out an ex post inspection, exclude the possibility for a taxable person to opt for the VAT exemption for small businesses?
1.

Is an interpretation according to which, provided that the period of three years has elapsed, since the holder, once Community protection of the plant variety right was granted, became aware of the infringing act and the identity of the infringer, the actions provided for under Articles 94 and 95 of the Regulation would be time-barred, although the infringing acts were continuing until the time the action was brought, contrary to Article 96 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94? ( 1 )
Case C-203/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2018 — Deutsche Post AG, Klaus Leymann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2018 — Deutsche Post AG, Klaus Leymann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-203/18)

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG, Klaus Leymann

Defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Questions referred

1. Is the exception set out in Article 13(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 ( 1 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 as amended by Article 45(2) of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 ( 2 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 to be interpreted as covering only vehicles or combinations of vehicles that are used exclusively for the purpose of delivering packages in the context of the universal service, or can it additionally be applied where the vehicles or combinations of vehicles are used, predominantly or to a degree determined in some other way, also for the purpose of delivering packages in the context of the universal service?

2. In the context of the exception referred to in the first question, for the purposes of assessing whether vehicles or combinations of vehicles are used exclusively or, as the case may be, predominantly or to a degree determined in some other way, also for the purpose of delivering packages in the context of the universal service, is the general use of a vehicle or combination of vehicles to be used as a basis for that assessment, or the specific use of a vehicle or combination of vehicles for a single journey?

( 1 ) Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1).

( 2 ) Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on tachographs in road transport, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (OJ 2014 L 60, p. 1).
Case C-222/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 28 March 2018 — VIPA Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v Országos Gyógyszerészeti és Élelmezés-egészségügyi Intézet

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 28 March 2018 — VIPA Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v Országos Gyógyszerészeti és Élelmezés-egészségügyi Intézet

(Case C-222/18)

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VIPA Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft.

Defendant: Országos Gyógyszerészeti és Élelmezés-egészségügyi Intézet

Question referred

Must Articles 3(k) and 11(1) of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare ( 1 ) be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, which distinguishes between two categories of prescriptions and, only in the case of one of those categories, allows medicinal products to be dispensed to a doctor who exercises his healthcare activity in a State other than the Member State concerned, contrary to the mutual recognition of prescriptions and to the freedom to provide services, and therefore incompatible therewith?

( 1 ) OJ L 88, 4.4.2011, p. 45.
Case C-241/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 5 April 2018 — easyJet Airline Co. Ltd v Regione Campania

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 5 April 2018 — easyJet Airline Co. Ltd v Regione Campania

(Case C-241/18)

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

Defendant: Regione Campania

Question referred

Must Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 30/2002/EC ( 1 ) and Annex II thereto be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a provision such as Article 1(169) to (174) of Law No 5/2013 of the Campana Region because the determination of the tax is not preceded by an overall plan relating to the measure to adopt to reduce aircraft noise emissions at airports and in areas surrounding those airports, for the purposes of Article 5 of the Directive and Annex II thereto.

( 1 ) Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports (OJ 2002 L 85, p. 40)
Case C-213/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italy) lodged on 26 March 2018 — Adriano Guaitoli and Others v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italy) lodged on 26 March 2018 — Adriano Guaitoli and Others v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

(Case C-213/18)

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Adriano Guaitoli, Concepción Casan Rodriguez, Alessandro Celano Tomassoni, Antonia Cirilli, Lucia Cortini, Mario Giuli, Patrizia Padroni

Defendant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

Questions referred

1. If a party whose flight has been delayed or cancelled jointly requests, not only the standardised and lump-sum compensation provided for by Articles 5, 7 and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, ( 1 ) but also the further compensation referred to in Article 12 of the Regulation, must Article 33 of the Montreal Convention apply, or is ‘jurisdiction’ (both international and local) governed by Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001? ( 2 )

2. In the first hypothesis in question 1, must Article 33 of the Montreal Convention be interpreted to the effect that it governs only the allocation of jurisdiction among the States Parties, or as meaning that it also governs local jurisdiction within the individual State?

3. In the first hypothesis in question 2, is the application of Article 33 of the Montreal Convention ‘exclusive’, precluding application of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, or may the two provisions be applied jointly, so as to determine directly both the jurisdiction of the State and the local jurisdiction of its courts?

( 1 ) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 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 — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

( 2 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
Case C-15/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 9 January 2018 — Finnair PLC v Igor Turtschin and Others

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 9 January 2018 — Finnair PLC v Igor Turtschin and Others

(Case C-15/18)

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Finnair PLC

Applicants and respondents in the appeal on a point of law: Igor Turtschin, Evgeniya Turtschina, Leon Turtschin

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 6 June 2018.
Case C-279/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 24 April 2018 — Magdalena Molina Rodríguez v Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal (SEPE)

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 24 April 2018 — Magdalena Molina Rodríguez v Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal (SEPE)

(Case C-279/18)

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Magdalena Molina Rodríguez

Defendant: Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal (SEPE)

Question referred

Must the prohibition of indirect discrimination on grounds of sex laid down in Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7/EEC on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security ( 1 ) be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Article 215(1)(3) of the Ley General de la Seguridad Social (General Law on Social Security) (approved by [Real Decreto Legislativo] 1/94 (Royal Legislative Decree 1/94)), which, as amended by Real Decreto Ley 5/2013 de 15 de marzo (Royal Decree-Law 5/2013 of 15 March), lays down a new condition — that household income may not exceed a certain amount — for entitlement to the non-contributory unemployment benefit for workers aged 55 and over, when this restricts entitlement to that benefit significantly more for female (as compared with male) potential beneficiaries, as is demonstrated by the statistics provided?

( 1 ) OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.
1.

In the context of the FDEAW, ( 1 ) what are the minimum standards for custodial conditions required under Article 4 of the Charter? a. Specifically, is there, under EU law, an ‘absolute’ minimum limit for the size of custody cells, pursuant to which the use of cells under that limit will always constitute an infringement of Article 4 of the Charter? i. When determining an individual’s portion of a custody cell, should the fact that a given cell is being used for single or multiple occupancy be taken into account? ii. When calculating the size of the custody cell, should areas covered by furniture (beds, wardrobes, etc.) be discounted? iii. What infrastructural requirements, if any, are relevant for the purposes of compliance of custodial conditions with EU law? Does direct (or only indirect) open access from the custody cell to, for example, sanitary facilities or other rooms, or the provision of hot and cold water, heating, lighting, etc. have any significance? b. To what extent do the various ‘prison regimes’, such as differing unlock times and varying degrees of freedom of movement within a penal institution, play a role in the assessment? c. Can legal and organisational improvements in the issuing Member State (introduction of an ombudsman system, establishment of courts of enforcement of penalties, etc.) also be taken into account, as the present Chamber did in its decisions on the permissibility of the extradition?
1.

Is a national provision which provides that the system of airport charges decided upon by the airport managing body must be submitted to the independent supervisory authority for approval, without prohibiting the airport managing body and the airport user from setting charges different from those approved by the supervisory authority, compatible with Directive 2009/12/EC ( 1 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges (OJ 2009 L 70 p. 11), in particular Article 3, Article 6(3) to (5) and Article 11(1) and (7) thereof?
Case C-251/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 April 2018 — Trace Sport v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 April 2018 — Trace Sport v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven

(Case C-251/18)

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Trace Sport

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven

Questions referred

1. Is Implementing Regulation No 501/2013 ( 1 ) valid in so far as it concerns the producer/exporter Kelani Cycles?

2. Is Implementing Regulation No 501/2013 valid in so far as it concerns the producer/exporter Creative Cycles?

( 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 2013 L 153, p. 1).
Case C-332/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 May 2018 by Mytilinaios Anonymos Etairia — Omilos Epicheiriseon against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 March 2018 in Case T-542/11 RENV Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE v European Commission

Appeal brought on 21 May 2018 by Mytilinaios Anonymos Etairia — Omilos Epicheiriseon against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 March 2018 in Case T-542/11 RENV Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE v European Commission

(Case C-332/18 P)

Parties

Appellant: Mytilinaios Anonymos Etairia — Omilos Epicheiriseon (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, N. Keramidas, E. Chrysafis and D. Diakopoulos, dikigoroi, and K. Struckmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI)

Form of order sought

By the present action, Mytilinaios Anonymos Etairia — Omilos Epicheiriseon claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 March 2018 in Case Τ-542/11 RENV (ECLI:EU:T:2018:132);

— decide the case itself;

— annul the Commission decision of 13 July 2011; and

— order the European Commission to pay the appellant’s costs in respect of the entire proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant puts forward three grounds of appeal:

1. Errors of law and distortion of the facts in the context of the General Court’s assessment as to whether the measure at issue constituted State aid, and in particular relating to whether the measure constituted an ‘advantage’, to the assessment of the advantage, to the refusal to examine the issue of economic justification and to the incorrect application of the burden of proof since the Hellenic Republic did not put forward such arguments in the administrative procedure, and an error of law relating to the treatment of the appellant’s arguments as regards the ‘private investor test’.

2. Error of law as regards the assessment of the selectivity of the advantage.
Case C-364/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 4 June 2018 — Eni SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 4 June 2018 — Eni SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-364/18)

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eni SpA

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Question referred

Do Article 6(1) and the sixth recital of Directive 94/22/EC ( 1 ) preclude national legislation, in particular Article 19(5-bis) of Legislative Decree No 625 of 1996, which, by reason of the interpretation provided by the Consiglio di Stato in judgment No 290/2018, allows the imposition, in the context of the payment of royalties, of the QE (energy share) parameter, based on the listed prices of oil and other fuels, rather than on the basis of the PFOR index, which is pegged to the price of gas on the short-term market?

( 1 ) Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (OJ 1994 L 164, p. 3).
Case C-407/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Slovenia) lodged on 21 June 2018 — Aleš Kuhar, Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Slovenia) lodged on 21 June 2018 — Aleš Kuhar, Jožef Kuhar v Addiko Bank d.d.

(Case C-407/18)

Referring court

Višje sodišče v Mariboru

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Aleš Kuhar, Jožef Kuhar

Defendant: Addiko Bank d.d.

Question referred

In the light of the principle of effectiveness of EU law, should Council Directive 93/13/EEC ( 1 ) be interpreted as meaning that, in enforcement proceedings, the court responsible for enforcement is required of its own motion to refuse enforcement on the ground that a directly enforceable notarial instrument (enforceable measure) contains an unfair clause, in a case such as that under consideration, in which the procedural rules of the Member State do not allow the court responsible for enforcement to suspend or stay enforcement (upon application by the debtor or of its own motion) until a final substantive decision on whether the term is unfair is given at the end of proceedings for declaratory relief brought by the debtor as consumer?

( 1 ) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
1(a)

Does Article 66(1) of Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 ( 1 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2328/2003, (EC) No 861/2006, (EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC) No 791/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Regulation 508/2014’), given that it provides that the EMFF ‘shall’ support the preparation and implementation of production and marketing plans referred to in Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 ( 2 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1184/2006 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 (‘Regulation 1379/2013’), preclude a Member State from responding to a producer organisation which has submitted an application for such a grant, by arguing that the Member State concerned had not made available, either in its operational programme approved by the European Commission, or in the national rules for determining the eligibility of expenditure, the possibility of making such an application at the time of the submission of the application for a certain category of expenditure (in the present case: the costs of the preparation and implementation of production and marketing plans) or for a certain period (in the present case: the year 2014)?
Case C-356/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 31 May 2018 — Christian Gmoser v Nürnberger Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft Österreich

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 31 May 2018 — Christian Gmoser v Nürnberger Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft Österreich

(Case C-356/18)

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christian Gmoser

Defendant: Nürnberger Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft Österreich

Questions referred

1. Must Article 15(1) of Directive 90/619/EEC (Second Life Assurance Directive), ( 1 ) as amended by Directive 92/96/EEC (Third Life Assurance Directive), ( 2 ) in conjunction with Article 31 of Directive 92/96/EEC, be interpreted as meaning that information regarding the right of cancellation must also contain a notice that the cancellation does not have to be communicated in any specific form?

2. In the event that the information issued to the policy-holder regarding the right of cancellation was incorrect, is it still possible for the life assurance contract to be cancelled after it has been terminated by the policy-holder by giving notice of termination (and repurchase)?

( 1 ) Second Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50).

( 2 ) Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 28 February 2018 by Wenger SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 23 January 2018 in Case T-869/16: Wenger v EUIPO

(Case C-162/18 P)

(2018/C 311/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Wenger SA (represented by: A. Sulovsky, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Swissgear Sàrl

By order of 5 July 2018 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that there is no need to adjudicate on the present appeal.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 27 June 2018 — Ordre des avocats du barreau de Dinant v JN

(Case C-421/18)

(2018/C 301/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Namur

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ordre des avocats du barreau de Dinant

Defendant: JN

Question referred

Is the action brought by a Bar Association seeking an order that one of its members pay the annual professional fees owed to it a matter ‘relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters? (1)

(1) OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.