ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Appeal brought on 24 April 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 February 2019 in Joined Cases T-131/16 and T-263/16: Belgium and Magnetrol International v Commission

(Case C-337/19 P)

(2019/C 213/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P.J. Loewenthal, F. Tomat, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of Belgium, Magnetrol International, Ireland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 14 February 2019 in Joined Cases T-131/16 and T-263/16 Belgium and Magnetrol International v. Commission EU:T:2019:91 insofar as it holds that Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 (1) of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium erroneously classified the ‘excess profit’ system as a scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 (2);

— refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration of the pleas not already assessed, and

— reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court committed an error of law by concluding that it was wrong to classify the ‘excess profit’ tax ruling practice, implemented by Belgium from 2004-14, as a scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589.

The General Court misinterpreted the first condition of Article 1(d) and distorted recitals (94) to (110) of the contested decision by concluding that the Commission considered only the legislative acts listed in recital (99) as constituting the basis of the ‘excess profit’ scheme.

The General Court misinterpreted the second condition of Article 1(d) and distorted recitals (100) to (108) of the contested decision by concluding that the grant of the ‘excess profit’ exemption necessitated the adoption of further implementing measures.

The General Court misinterpreted the third condition of Article 1(d) and distorted recitals (66), (102), (103), (109), (139) and (140) of the contested decision by concluding that further implementing measures were necessary to define the beneficiaries of the ‘excess profit’ exemption.

Finally, the General Court disregarded the ratio legis of Article 1(d) by concluding that the Commission erroneously classified the ‘excess profit’ system as a scheme within the meaning of that provision.

(1) OJ 2016, L 260, p. 61.

(2) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9).
2.

Is a telephone number ‘available’ within the meaning of the instructions for completion for model instructions on withdrawal set out in Annex I.A to Directive 2011/83/EU if, although the trader uses the telephone connection for commercial purposes, he does not use it to enter into distance contracts and therefore does not operate it for the purpose of terminating distance contracts in the form of an acceptance of notices of withdrawal either?
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 19 April 2019 — eurocylinder systems AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg

(Case C-324/19)

(2019/C 255/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: eurocylinder systems AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg

Question referred

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 of 24 September 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) valid?

(1) OJ 2009, L 262, p. 19.
3.

The Court of Justice is asked whether, in the light of Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, national case-law establishing that, after the declaration of invalidity of the clause attributing to the borrower all the formalisation, novation or cancellation costs of a loan agreement secured by a mortgage, the borrower must also be required to pay the costs involved in valuing the property and the tax on the establishment of the mortgage deriving from formalisation of the loan infringes the principle that consumers are not bound by terms found to be unfair, and whether it is contrary to Article 3(2) of Directive 93/13 to place on the borrower the burden of proving that he was not permitted to provide his own valuation of the property.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 24 May 2019 — LM v Centre public d’action sociale de Seraing

(Case C-402/19)

(2019/C 255/35)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: LM

Respondent: Centre public d’action sociale de Seraing

Questions referred

Does point 1 of the first subparagraph of Article 57(2) of the Organic Law of 8 July 1976 on public social welfare centres infringe Articles 5 and 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC, (1) read in the light of Articles 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 14(1)(b) of that directive and Articles 7 and [21] of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Abdida judgment of 18 December 2014 (Case C-562/13):

— first, in so far as it results in depriving a third-country national, staying illegally on the territory of a Member State, of provision, in so far as possible, for his basic needs pending resolution of the action for suspension and annulment that he has brought in his own name as the representative of his child, who was at that time a minor, against a decision ordering them to leave the territory of a Member State;

— where, second, on the one hand, that child who has now come of age suffers from a serious illness and the enforcement of that decision may expose that child to a serious risk of grave and irreversible deterioration in her state of health and, on the other, the presence of that parent alongside his daughter who has now come of age is considered to be imperative by the medical professional given that she is particularly vulnerable as a result of her state of health (recurrent sickle cell crises and the need for surgery in order to prevent paralysis)?

(1) Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).
1.

Should point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article 26(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 (1) of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing be interpreted as meaning that Member States are permitted, by way of derogation from the provision contained in Article 4(4) of that regulation and with a view to promoting animal welfare, to adopt rules such as those contained in the decreet van het Vlaamse Gewest van 7 juli 2017‘houdende wijziging van de wet van 14 augustus 1986 betreffende de bescherming en het welzijn der dieren, wat de toegelaten methodes voor het slachten van dieren betreft’ (Decree of the Flemish Region of 7 July 2017‘amending the Law of 14 August 1986 on the protection and welfare of animals, regarding permitted methods of slaughtering animals’), rules which provide, on the one hand, for a prohibition of the slaughter of animals without stunning that also applies to the slaughter carried out in the context of a religious rite and, on the other hand, for an alternative stunning procedure for the slaughter carried out in the context of a religious rite, based on reversible stunning and on condition that the stunning should not result in the death of the animal?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 3 May 2019 — Crown Van Gelder B.V. v Autoriteit Consument en Markt

(Case C-360/19)

(2019/C 270/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Crown Van Gelder B.V.

Respondent: Autoriteit Consument en Markt

Question referred

Must Article 37(11) of Directive 2009/72/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC be interpreted as meaning that that provision also makes the right of complaint with regard to the operator of the national grid (transmission system operator) available to a party if that party has no connection to the grid of that national grid operator (transmission system operator) but has a connection only to a regional grid (distribution system) to which the transmission of electricity is interrupted as a result of a power cut on the national grid (transmission system) that feeds the regional grid (distribution system)?

(1) OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 17 June 2019 — Friends of the Irish Environment Limited v Commissioner for Environmental Information

(Case C-470/19)

(2019/C 280/41)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Friends of the Irish Environment Limited

Respondent: Commissioner for Environmental Information

First Notice Party: The Courts Service of Ireland

Question referred

Is control of access to court records relating to proceedings in which final judgment has been delivered, the period for an appeal has expired and no appeal or further application is pending, but further applications in particular circumstances are possible, an exercise of ‘judicial capacity’ within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC?

(1) OJ 2003, L 41, p. 26.
4.

Do Article 7(1) or other provisions of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 preclude the application of provisions of national law concerning the performance of obligations which result in the dismissal of an action brought by a passenger or his legal successor on the sole ground that the claim incorrectly indicated the national currency of the passenger’s place of residence rather than the Euro in accordance with Article 7(1) of the Regulation?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 24 April 2019 — Eurowings GmbH v GD, HE, IF

(Case C-334/19)

(2019/C 288/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Eurowings GmbH

Respondents: GD, HE, IF

Question referred

Are the provisions of 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, (1) in particular Article 5(3) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the spontaneous absence of a significant portion of the flight crew staff — occasioned by their placing themselves on sick leave (‘a wildcat strike’) — of an air carrier that is leasing out an aircraft and crew under a ‘wet lease’ to the ‘operating air carrier’, within the meaning of Article 2(b) of that regulation, but which does not bear operational responsibility for the flights, has as an effect that the ‘operating air carrier’ is also not able to rely on ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of that regulation, in accordance with the judgment of 17 April 2018, Krüsemann and Others, C-195/17, C-197/17 to C-203/17, C-226/17, C-228/17, C-254/17, C-274/17, C-275/17, C-278/17 to C-286/17 and C-290/17 to C-292/17? (2)

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

(2) EU:C:2018:258.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2019 — Condominio di Milano v Eurothermo SpA

(Case C-329/19)

(2019/C 288/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Condominio di Milano

Defendant: Eurothermo SpA

Question referred

Does the concept of consumer, as adopted by Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) preclude classification as a consumer of an entity (such as the entity comprising owners of apartments in a building (condominio) in Italian law), which does not come within the concept of ‘natural person’ or ‘legal person’, in cases where that entity concludes a contract for purposes which are outside its trade, business or profession and where it is in a position of weakness vis-à-vis the seller or supplier, as regards both its bargaining power and its level of knowledge?

(1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 25 June 2019 — Lexel

(Case C-484/19)

(2019/C 295/11)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lexel AB

Defendant: Skatteverket

Questions referred

Is it compatible with Article 49 TFEU to refuse a Swedish company a deduction for interest paid to a company which is in the same group of associated enterprises and is resident in a different Member State on the ground that the principal reason for the debt having arisen is deemed to be that the group of associated enterprises is to receive a substantial tax benefit, when such a tax benefit would not have been deemed to exist if both companies had been Swedish, since they would then have been covered by the provisions on intra-group transfers?
1.

The General Court erred in stating that the mention of the product ‘electricity’ in the non-exhaustive list drawn up by EUIPO for the submission of declarations for the purposes of Article 28(8) EUTMR (paragraphs 41, 46 and 54) proves that electricity, in its everyday and usual meaning, is not included in Class 4 of the Eighth Edition of the Nice Classification. In the first place, the error in law arises from the fact that the appellant’s application to restrict the list of goods designated was submitted on 15 June 2015, while the document to which EUIPO refers was established with Communication No 1/2016 of 8 February 2016. In the second place, it is also an error in law to assume that the exclusion of a term from the list constitutes evidence, when it is no more than a set of non-binding interpretations.
—

reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the appellants to EUR 5 877 732 on the basis of all three pleas; or at least to EUR 17 679 141 on the basis of the first plea only, to EUR 13 305 478 on the basis of the second plea only, to EUR 19 099 565 on the basis of the third plea only, to EUR 8 228 824 on the basis of the first and second pleas, to EUR 12 627 958 on the basis of the first and the third pleas, or to EUR 9 503 913 on the basis of the second and the third pleas; and
Action brought on 12 July 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-537/19)

(2019/C 295/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek, M. Noll-Ehlers and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, in so far as Stadt Wien-Wiener Wohnen directly awarded the contract of 25 February 2012 in respect of the office building on Guglstrasse 2-4 in Vienna without any competitive tendering procedure and corresponding contract notice, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 28 and 35(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC; (1)

— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission claims that in 2012 the City of Vienna, as a public contracting authority, concluded with a private contractor a long-term lease in respect of an office building before it was constructed. The City of Vienna thereby exercised decisive influence over the planning of the works which far exceeds the usual requirements of a lessee in relation to newly constructed premises.

That lease constitutes a public works contract, as is clear from the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice on the leasing of unfinished building projects by contracting authorities. Since there was no competitive tendering procedure, the award infringes Articles 2, 28 and 35(2) of Directive 2004/18. That infringement persists so long as the lease, which cannot properly be terminated before 2040, continues to exist.

(1) Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).
2.

If the answer to the first question is that the establishment of the statutory monopoly must be recognised as meeting the SGEI criteria, is a rule such as that resulting from the combined provisions of Article 10(3) of Legislative Decree No 504/1992, Article 2(18) to (20) of Law No 662/1996 and Article 3(1) of Presidential Decree No 144/2001, which grants Poste Italiane s.p.a. the power unilaterally to determine the level of the fee payable by the agent collecting the ICI that is applied to each management transaction carried out in the postal current account in the name of the agent, incompatible with Articles 106(2) TFEU (formerly Article 90 of the Treaty, then Article 86(2) EC) and 107(1) TFEU (formerly Article 92 of the Treaty, then Article 87 EC), according to the interpretation of such rules provided by the Court of Justice with reference to the requirements for distinguishing a lawful measure — providing compensation for the performance of public service obligations — from unlawful State aid (judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 July 2003, Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, C 280/00), bearing in mind that Poste Italiane spa, by board decision No 57/1996, set that fee at ITL 100 for the period from 1 April 1997 to 31 May 2001 and at EUR 0.23 for the period from 1 June 2001?
Official Journal of the European Union

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Koszalinie (Poland) lodged on 21 February 2019 — V.C. Sp. z. o. o. v P.K.

(Case C-150/19)

(2019/C 319/25)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Koszalinie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: V.C. Sp. z. o. o.

Defendant: P.K.

By order of 4 June 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union has held that Case C-150/19 is to be removed from the register of the Court.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 15 July 2019 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Telefonica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG

(Case C-539/19)

(2019/C 328/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Defendant: Telefonica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG

Question referred

Are Articles 6a and 6e(3) of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, as from 15 June 2017, mobile communications operators were required automatically to switch all customers to the regulated tariff under Article 6a of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 regardless of whether those customers hitherto had a regulated tariff or a special, so-called alternative, roaming tariff?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union (OJ 2012 L 172, p. 10), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 (OJ 2015 L 310, p. 1).
1.

Infringement of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) (1) and Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union The appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in its application of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations. Downgrading from the post of Director of the Operations Department to that of Senior Expert without any career prospects and without any evaluation or disciplinary procedure protecting the appellant’s rights does not constitute lawful redeployment, but is unlawful demotion. The 2014 amendment of the Staff Regulations developed the prospect of promotion for Directors above Grade AD 12 into a right to be enjoyed by such officials. The appointing authority cannot unilaterally withdraw that right without a proper evaluation or disciplinary procedure. Since 2014, according to the law, it has no longer been possible to consider a post as a Director to be equivalent to a post as a Senior Expert without promotion prospects. Further, the General Court makes reference to case-law on redeployment under Article 7 of the Staff Regulations and the equivalence of posts, but goes on to draw the wrong conclusions from it. Finally, the General Court made an error in law and an administrative error by failing to come to a comprehensive decision on the second plea in law, namely on the unlawful demotion of the appellant on 10 October 2016 without simultaneous transfer to a new post, which occurred only on 17 October 2016. For that very reason, this does not come within the meaning of a transfer under Article 7 of the Staff Regulations (paragraphs 49-106 of the judgment).
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 14 March 2019 by Petr Fryč against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 January 2019 in Case T-513/18, Fryč v Commission

(Case C-230/19 P)

(2019/C 357/05)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Petr Fryč (represented by: Š. Oharková, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 5 September 2019, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that this appeal is manifestly unfounded.
1.

Do the principle of the free movement of goods laid down in Article 34 TFEU and the principles, developed on that basis, of the parallel import of medicinal products require the national authorising authority to consent to an amendment to the indications regarding the dosage of a parallel-imported medicinal product even if the reference authorisation has expired and the amendment is substantiated with an adoption of the indications regarding a domestically produced medicinal product with essentially the same active ingredient and different form of administration in combination with the indications approved in the exporting State for the parallel-imported medicinal product?
If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative (and there is thus a communication to the public):

Does the finding that the operator of a platform for Usenet services has made a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive preclude the application of Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1; ‘Directive on electronic commerce’)?