ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/2

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 26 March 2014 — TMK Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

(Case C-143/14)

2014/C 235/02

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TMK Europe GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

Question referred

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 (1) of 17 November 1997 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the Republic of Croatia invalid because the Commission, in breach of the requirements applicable to the determination of injury laid down in Article 3(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, assumed such (injury) to exist without taking into account in this regard the fact that, pursuant to an unpublished decision of 25 November 1994 (Case IV/35.304), adopted on the basis of, inter alia, Article 14(3) of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 81 EC and 82 EC (OJ English Special Edition 19591962, p. 87), the Commission had carried out an investigation into the possible existence of anti-competitive practices concerning pipes and tubes of non-alloy steel which might possibly infringe Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, pp. 3 to 522) and Article 81 EC?

(1) OJ 1997 L 322, p. 1.

(2) OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1.
E.

Fifth ground of appeal, alleging error of law and failure to state grounds in relation to the breach of the Commission’s ‘Best Practices’ and in relation to the breach of the principle of due process By its fifth ground of appeal, Buzzi Unicem submits that the General Court erred in law by finding that the Commission’s ‘Best Practices’ were not binding on the Commission where, having decided to ask undertakings to comment on a draft decision under Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003, the Commission thereafter did not take any account of the comments received and significantly amended the text of the final decision. Buzzi Unicem also contests the failure to state grounds in relation to the breach of the principle of due process on the part of the Commission through the way in which it had exercised the power to request information.
2.

Is the principle of non-discrimination in clause 4(4) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP applicable to such ‘non-permanent staff’, so that they may be granted the right to receive and be paid the remuneration in respect of length of service which is paid to career civil servants, staff engaged under employment contracts for an indefinite duration, interim (non-established) civil servants and staff engaged under temporary employment contracts?
—

declare that, as regards Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (1), by failing to adopt, for some parts of its territory, the transposition provisions of the definitions in Article 2(2), (7) and (9) and the requirements laid down in Article 8(1), Article 9(1), Article 11(2) to (5), and Article 18 and Annex II or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 28(1) of the Directive;
I.

In support of the appeal against the order by which the General Court declared the action inadmissible. I.1-. Regarding the finding that SACBO lacks legal standing. Error of law: infringement and/or misapplication of the following provisions: fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU; Articles 6 and 13 ECHR; Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Article III.8.2 of Decision C (2010) 4456; second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU owing to an inadequate and/or contradictory statement of reasons and decision; Article 107 TFEU and Article 108(3) TFEU. — the order is flawed in so far as it did not find that, as a co-financer, SACBO is responsible for the entire investment and the implementation thereof and is accordingly affected by all aspects of the contested decision, that is to say, by the non-recovery of the investments made, by the sums to be repaid, and by the complaints set out in that decision, all of which relate to SACBO’s conduct; — infringement of Article 107 TFEU and Article 108 TFEU, since the General Court failed to find that the recovery by ENAC (l’Ente Nazionale per l’Aviazione Civile) (Italian Civil Aviation Authority) of the joint funding is obligatory under EU law, with non-repayment constituting unlawful State aid; — the order is flawed in so far as it did not consider SACBO’s role in the process which led to the adoption of the contested decision; — the order is flawed in so far as it did not consider SACBO’s legal standing, arising from the harm done to its image as a result of the contested decision. I .2-. Regarding the finding that the contested decision is not an actionable measure. Error of law: infringement and/or misapplication of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and infringement of Article III.3.6 and Article III.3.9 of the financing decision; infringement and/or misapplication of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU owing to a contradictory statement of reasons. — the order is flawed in so far as it did not find that the financing decision also constitutes the repayment obligation as it clearly and definitively establishes the level of funding and the sums to be repaid; — the order is flawed in so far as it did not find that the contested decision constitutes the final closing act in the funding reduction process, independent of and separate from the subsequent stage of actual recovery.
—

find that, in requiring persons applying for positions with local services established in French-speaking or German-speaking regions who do not have diplomas or certificates to show that they have completed their studies in the language concerned to obtain the certificate issued by SELOR (having taken the exam organised by that body), and in making that certificate the only way in which those persons can prove that they have the language skills needed for such positions, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union; (1)
1)

Must Article 1(2) of the European Commission Decision (1) of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 be interpreted to the effect that the legitimate expectations recognised in that paragraph and in the terms in which they are confined therein to deduction of the tax amortisation of financial goodwill under Article 12.5 TRLIS are to be considered applicable in relation to indirect foreign shareholding acquisitions made through the direct acquisition of a non-resident holding company?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/37

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2014 — ADM Hamburg AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

(Case C-294/14)

2014/C 315/60

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ADM Hamburg AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

Question referred

Is the factual condition laid down in the first sentence of Article 74(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1063/2010 of 18 November 2010, (2) whereby the products declared for release for free circulation in the European Union must be the same products as exported from the beneficiary country in which they are considered to originate, fulfilled in a case such as the present case, where several part-consignments of crude palm kernel oil are exported from different GSP exporting countries from those in which they are considered to originate and imported into the European Union not as physically separate consignments, but are all exported after being poured into the same tank of the cargo vessel and imported as a mixture in that tank into the European Union, such that it can be ruled out that other products (not enjoying preferential treatment) have been put into the tank of the cargo vessel during the time the products were being transported until they were released for free circulation?

(1) OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2010 L 307, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/14

Appeal brought on 3 June 2014 by Debonair Trading Internacional Lda against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 3 April 2014 in Case T-356/12: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-270/14 P)

2014/C 303/18

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1) Set aside paragraph 2 of the Decision dismissing the action as to the remainder;

2) Remit the case to the General Court for further consideration with direction as to the applicable law;

3) Order the Respondent to pay the costs both of the proceedings before the General Court and those before the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant relies on a single plea in law, namely infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR (1). In summary, it contends that the General Court erred by purporting to limit the conditions in which a likelihood of confusion may arise between a ‘family’ of trade marks and a later trade mark. Alternatively the Appellant contends that the General Court failed to carry out a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion taking into account all relevant factors.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark,

OJ L 78, p. 1
1.

Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted, to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/40

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld (Germany) lodged on 4 July 2014 — Jaouad El Majdoub v CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-322/14)

2014/C 315/65

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Krefeld

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jaouad El Majdoub

Defendant: CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH

Question referred

Does so-called ‘click wrapping’ fulfil the requirements for there to be a communication by electronic means within the meaning of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 44/2001? (1)

(1) 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).
2.

Can Article 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC, in conjunction with Article 2 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that reliance by an economic operator on the capacities of other entities in terms of their knowledge and experience ‘regardless of the legal nature of the links which it has with them’ and ‘having at its disposal the resources’ of those entities denote that during performance of the contract an economic operator need not have links with those entities or can have very loose and vague links, that is to say, it can perform the contract independently (without the involvement of another entity) or such participation can consist of ‘advice’, ‘consultation’, ‘training’ and the like? Or must Article 48(3) be interpreted as meaning that the entity on whose capacities the economic operator relies must actually and personally perform the contract in so far as its capacities were declared?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 339/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 July 2014 — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v A1 Telekom Austria AG

(Case C-326/14)

2014/C 339/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Defendant: A1 Telekom Austria AG

Question referred

Is the right, provided for in Article 20(2) of the Universal Service Directive (1), for subscribers to withdraw from their contracts without penalty ‘upon notice of … modifications in the contractual conditions’ also to be provided for in the case where an adjustment to charges derives from contractual conditions which, from the time when the contract is first concluded, provide that future charges are to be adjusted (upwards or downwards) in accordance with changes in an objective consumer price index reflecting movements in the value of money?

(1) Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2009 L 337, p. 11).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 372/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone (Italy) lodged on 6 August 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Rosaria Laezza

(Case C-375/14)

2014/C 372/06

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Frosinone

Party to the main proceedings

Rosaria Laezza

Question referred

Are Article 49 and follows. and Article 56 and follows. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as also expanded upon by the principles laid down in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 February 2012 in Case C-72/10, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which imposes an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the right to use the tangible and intangible assets constituting the network for managing and collecting bets upon cessation of that activity due to the expiry of the relevant licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?
3.

Are the Irish courts entitled to consider the question of habitual residence of the child in the circumstances where she has resided in Ireland since July, 2012 at which time her removal to Ireland was not in breach of French law?
1.

Are the principles of fiscal neutrality, proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations violated by administrative practice and case-law according to which it is for the vendor — the consignor under the transport contract — to determine the authenticity of the acquirer’s signature and to establish whether it comes from a person representing the company (the acquirer), one of its employees in a corresponding position or an authorised person?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 372/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 13 August 2014 — Groupe Steria SCA v Ministry of Finance and Public Accounts

(Case C-386/14)

2014/C 372/07

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Groupe Steria SCA

Defendant: Ministry of Finance and Public Accounts

Question referred

Must Article 43 EC (now Article 49 TFEU) on freedom of establishment be interpreted as precluding the rules governing the French tax-integration regime from granting a tax-integrated parent company neutralisation as regards the add-back of the proportion of costs and expenses, fixed at 5 % of the net amount of the dividends received by it from tax-integrated resident companies only, when such a right is refused to it under those rules as regards the dividends distributed to it from its subsidiaries established in another Member State, which had they been resident would have been eligible in practice, if they so elected?
1.

Should Article 24(1) and point (b) of Article 25 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘supply of services’ also covers cases involving subscription contracts for the supply of consulting services such as those at issue in the main proceedings, namely where a supplier, having qualified personnel available for supplying the services, has agreed to be on call for the customer during the term of the contract and has undertaken to refrain from entering into similar contracts with the customer’s competitors?
Does an advertisement for a product which indicates the price to be paid for it constitute an offer within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 98/6/EC (1)?

If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:
2.

If these questions are answered in the negative: Are the prohibitions on double punishment and double prosecution laid down by Article 54 of the Schengen Convention and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be interpreted as prohibiting prosecution of an accused person in one Member State — in the present case, the Federal Republic of Germany — where his prosecution in another Member State — in the present case, the Republic of Poland — by the Public Prosecutor has been discontinued, without any obligations imposed by way of penalty having been performed and without any detailed investigations, for factual reasons in the absence of adequate grounds for suspecting the accused of the crime, and can be re-opened only if significant circumstances previously unknown come to light, where such new circumstances have not in fact emerged?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/18

Action brought on 3 November 2014 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-485/14)

(2015/C 007/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by exempting from droits de mutation à titre gratuit (duty payable on transfers for which no consideration is given) gifts and legacies to public bodies or to charitable bodies only where such bodies are established in France, in a Member State or in a State which is party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area which has concluded a bilateral agreement with France, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and

— order French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the Commission, French legislation, as interpreted by the tax authorities, exempts from droits de mutation à titre gratuit gifts and legacies to public bodies or to charitable bodies only where such bodies are established in France, in a Member State or in a State which is party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area which has concluded a bilateral agreement with France. The Commission considers that that constitutes a restriction on free movement of capital, contrary to Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement.

By way of justification for such an arrangement, the French Republic claims, as its principal argument, that French legislation makes a distinction between tax payers who are not in an objectively comparable situation and, in the alternative, puts forward a public interest argument, based on the need to collect taxes.

The Commission contests that justification. In its view, the contested provisions make a distinction on the basis of criteria that are purely geographical. Moreover, the Commission considers that the public interest plea relied on does not satisfy the requirements laid down by case-law, in particular the judgment in Persche (1). Lastly, the Commission is of the view that the restriction on the movement of capital is, in any event, disproportionate.

(1) Judgment in Persche, C-318/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:33.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/14

Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 September 2014 in Case T-471/11 Odile Jacob v Commission

(Case C-514/14 P)

(2015/C 026/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, O. Fréget and L. Eskenazi, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Lagardère SCA, Wendel

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the present appeal is admissible and well founded;

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 5 September 2014 in Case T-471/11 Editions Odile Jacob SAS v European Commission and itself adjudicate the dispute;

— grant the forms of order sought by Éditions Odile Jacob at first instance and accordingly annul Decision SG-Greffe (2011) D/C(2011)3503 of 13 May 2011, adopted in Case COMP/M.2978 Lagardère/Natexis/VUP following the judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 in Case T-452/04 Éditions Odile Jacob v Commission, by which the Commission once again approved Wendel as purchaser of the assets transferred in accordance with the commitments attached to the Commission’s decision of 7 January 2004 authorising the concentration Lagardère/Natexis/VUP;

— order the European Commission and the interveners to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal, including those relating to the interim proceedings and the rectification proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

First, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by failing to find that the Commission had infringed Article 266 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. As that flaw tainted the lawfulness of the first approval decision, it also vitiated the contested decision, since the latter did not remedy the effects of the agent’s lack of independence throughout his mission. Consequently, according to the appellant, the Commission’s adoption of the contested decision constitutes a breach of the rules governing the right to a fair hearing and negates the effectiveness of any judicial review of the measures taken by that institution.

Secondly, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in finding that the conditional authorisation decision could constitute a legal basis for a new approval decision.

Lastly, the appellant submits that the General Court disregarded the legal criteria for assessing the independence of the transferee of the assets sold in relation to the transferor; that it erred in law; and that it distorted the facts relating to that assessment.