ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/2

Appeal brought on 16 December 2013 by Zoo Sport Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2013 in Case T-455/12: Zoo Sport Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and intervener before the General Court K-2 Corp.

(Case C-675/13 P)

2014/C 303/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Zoo Sport Ltd (represented by: I. Rungg, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and K-2 Corp.

By order of 15 July 2014 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 85/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 October 2013 — Les Laboratoires Servier SA v Ministre des affaires sociales et de la santé, Ministre de l'Économie et des Finances

(Case C-691/13)

2014/C 85/28

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Les Laboratoires Servier SA

Defendants: Ministre des affaires sociales et de la santé, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Question referred

Does Article 6(2) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (1) require that reasons be stated for decisions as to inclusion or re-inclusion in the list of medicinal products eligible for reimbursement by the health insurance funds which — by limiting, in comparison with the application made, the therapeutic indications giving rise to eligibility for reimbursement, or by making that reimbursement subject to conditions relating to, inter alia, the qualifications of the prescribing doctors, the organisation of care or the follow-up of patients, or in any other way — make the reimbursement by the health insurance funds available to only some of the patients liable to benefit from the medicinal product or only in certain circumstances?

(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 85/17

Action brought on 21 January 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-29/14)

2014/C 85/32

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Gheorghiu and M. Owsiany-Hornung, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, (1) under Articles 3(b), 4(2) and 7 of, and Annex III to, Commission Directive 2006/17/EC of 8 February 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells, (2) and under Article 11 of Commission Directive 2006/86/EC of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (3) by exempting reproductive cells and embryonic and foetal tissue from the scope of the provisions of national law designed to transpose those directives;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Poland’s transposition of Directives 2004/23, 2006/17 and 2006/86 into the Polish legal system is incomplete because the scope of the Law of 1 July 2005 on the procurement, storage and transplantation of cells, tissue and organs, by which those directives were transposed into the Polish legal system, and of the implementing measures adopted on the basis of that Law does not encompass reproductive cells and embryonic and foetal tissue.

As a result, Polish legislation contains no provisions for the transposition of Directives 2004/23 and 2006/86 in so far as those directives relate to reproductive cells and embryonic and foetal tissue.

There has also been a failure to transpose the provisions of Directive 2006/17 concerning reproductive cells, that is to say, Articles 3(b) and 4(2) of, and Annex III to, that directive.

In the procedure prior to the judicial proceedings, while the Republic of Poland confirmed that there were no corresponding provisions in national law, it stressed the following: ‘In the context of reproductive cells and embryonic and foetal tissue, the provisions of the directives are to a large degree applied in daily clinical practice — they have been transposed at an expert level …’.

The Commission takes the view that it was necessary for the provisions in question to be transposed in full by way of legally binding measures.

(1) OJ 2004 L 102, p. 48.

(2) OJ 2006 L 38, p. 40.

(3) OJ 2006 L 294, p. 32.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/7

Appeal brought on 16 January 2014 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 November 2013 in Case T-512/09: Rusal Armenal ZAO v Council of the European Union

(Case C-21/14 P)

2014/C 61/11

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Brakeland, M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Rusal Armenal ZAO, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, extended composition) of 5 November 2013, notified to the Commission on 6 November 2013, in Case T-512/09 Rusal Armenal ZAO v Council;

— reject the first plea of the Application at first instance as unfounded in law;

— refer the case for the remaining pleas to the General Court for reconsideration;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission maintains that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds:

First, the General Court has ruled ultra petita.

Second, the General Court has misinterpreted Article 2(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), in the version applicable when the contested Regulation was adopted, and the intention of the Community legislator, in the sense of the Nakajima case-law (2), when adopting that provision.

Third, the General Court has violated the general principle of Community law of institutional balance.

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

(2) Case C-69/89 Nakajima v Council [1991] ECR I-2069, paragraphs 28 to 32; restated in Case C-149/96 Portugal v Council [1999] ECR I-8395, paragraph 49; see also Case C-76/00 P Petrotub and Republica v Council [2003] ECR I-79, paragraphs 53 to 56.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 102/22

Appeal brought on 4 February 2014 by JAS Jet Air Service France (JAS) against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 3 December 2013 in Case T-573/11 JAS Jet Air Service France v Commission

(Case C-53/14 P)

2014/C 102/31

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: JAS Jet Air Service France (JAS) (represented by: T. Gallois and E. Dereviankine, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the General Court as it is set out in the operative part of the judgment given on 3 December 2013 in Case T-573/11;

— grant the form of order sought at first instance by the company JAS Jet Air Service France in so far as it seeks the annulment of the Decision of the European Commission dated 5 August 2011 in Case REM 01/2008 dismissing the application for remission of import duties amounting to EUR 1 001 778,20 which it presented on 24 January 2008;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two grounds in support of its appeal against the judgment by which the General Court upheld the decision of the Commission of 5 August 2011 dismissing the application for remission of import duties presented by the appellant.

In the first place, the appellant alleges that the General Court infringed Articles 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 (1) and 239 of the Community Customs Code, (2) in so far as it failed to acknowledge the existence of a ‘special situation’ allowing the remission applied for. The General Court maintained that the appellant’s situation was not similar to that of the company CALBERSON BV (case REM 10/01), to which the Commission had granted the remission.

In the second place, the appellant considers that the General Court infringed the articles cited above, in so far as it failed to take account, for the purpose of recognising the existence of a ‘special situation’, of the deficiency which took place at the level of the internal procedure for the issue and review of import authorisations without VAT, known as A12 (Article 275 of the French General Tax Code and its implementing provisions). The General Court reversed the burden of proof, and therefore infringed the general principles of law, by holding that it was for the appellant to establish precisely the consequences of that deficiency.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the repayment or remission of import or export duties (OJ 1979 L 175, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/20

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 27 January 2014 — Subdelegación del Gobierno en Gipuzkoa — Extranjería v Samir Zaizoune

(Case C-38/14)

2014/C 93/32

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Gipuzkoa — Extranjería

Other party: Samir Zaizoune

Question referred

In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, must Articles 4(2), 4(3) and 6(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that they preclude legislation, such as the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings and the case-law which interprets it, pursuant to which the illegal stay of a foreign national may be punishable just by a financial penalty, which, moreover, may not be imposed concurrently with the penalty of removal?

(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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/15

Action brought on 10 March 2014 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-113/14)

2014/C 129/19

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, A. Wiedemann, Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/01 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1);

— annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1370/2013 of 16 December 2013 determining measures on fixing certain aids and refunds related to the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products, (2) which refers to Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013;

— rule that the effects of the aforementioned legal provisions be considered definitive until provisions adopted on the correct legal basis enter into force;

— order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Federal Republic of Germany seeks annulment of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 which establishes the common organisation of agricultural markets, was adopted in its entirety on the legal basis of Article 43(2) TFEU.

However, according to the Federal Government, Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 constitutes a ‘measure on fixing prices’ within the meaning of Article 43(3) TFEU. The Federal Government therefore takes the view that Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 should not have been adopted on the legal basis of Article 43(2) TFEU but on the legal basis of Article 43(3) TFEU. According to the Federal Government, Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 therefore uses an incorrect legal basis.

The Federal Government claims that, for reasons of legal certainty and clarity, Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1370/2013, which refers to Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, must also be annulled. By referring to Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, which must, in its view, be annulled, Article 2 contributes to giving the false impression that it uses the correct legal basis and is lawful.

In the Federal Government's opinion, the effects of the aforementioned legal provisions must be considered definitive until provisions adopted on the correct legal basis enter into force, in order to protect overriding interests, on grounds of the protection of legitimate expectations for agricultural holdings and on grounds of legal certainty, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 264 TFEU.

(1) OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671.

(2) OJ 2013 L 346, p. 12.
2.

Is it consistent with Arts 5(2) and 6 of the Directive for a Member State to provide in its regulations that a public authority may charge an amount for supplying environmental information which does ‘… not exceed an amount which the public authority is satisfied is a reasonable amount’ if the decision of the public authority as to what is a ‘reasonable amount’ is subject to administrative and judicial review as provided under English law?
1.

On a proper construction of Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 93/13, (1) must an agreement between a bank and an individual consumer be held to be individually negotiated when, as well as altering the conditions on the limiting of interest rates, it imposes on the consumer the costs of amending the authentic instrument of loan and mortgage executed by the bank and the consumer, and when that agreement was proposed by the bank as one of the possible alternatives for altering the financial terms of the loan and was voluntarily accepted by the consumer following an agreement reached after negotiations between the bank and a mutual society of which the consumer is a member in the interests and to the benefit of the members of that mutual society?
4.

Does the occurrence of ‘repeated irregularities’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 require that the acts or omissions assessed as irregularities be closely linked in time in order to be regarded as a ‘repetition’? If so, are they no longer closely linked in time if, inter alia, the irregularity in the assessment of a sugar quantity occurs only once in a sugar marketing year and occurs again only in a following or subsequent sugar marketing year?
In the event that the jurisdictional rules of the Montreal Convention prevail, can the claimant opt to pursue his claim before a court established in a State Party, even where there is no additional connecting factor, or must the court where his claim is pursued have territorial jurisdiction under the procedural rules of the Member State concerned?

In addition, how should the optional jurisdictional rule under the Montreal Convention be interpreted, which refers to the court in the place where the carrier has a place of business through which the contract was made?
1.

If an action in personam is brought by a bank in 2009 to recover the sum that it considers is owed to it by its clients following the sale at auction of their mortgaged properties, is Directive 93/13/EEC (1) applicable for the purpose of examining the terms of a mortgage loan contracted in 1986, in view of the fact that the third auction (19 July 1993), the decisions of the court approving the quantification of the interest (3 July 2000) and definitively approving the order awarding the properties auctioned (18 July 2000) all post-date the publication of that directive?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea (Romania) lodged on 7 March 2014 — Horațiu Ovidiu Costea v SC Volksbank România SA

(Case C-110/14)

2014/C 175/25

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Horațiu Ovidiu Costea

Defendant: SC Volksbank România SA

Question referred

Must Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) be interpreted as including in, or as excluding from, the definition of ‘consumer’ a natural person who practises as a lawyer and concludes a credit agreement with a bank, in which the purpose of the credit concerned is not specified, when in that agreement that natural person’s law firm is stated to be the guarantor for the mortgage?

(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
If the first two questions are answered in the negative:

Is such a product to be classified as goods under code number 2202 90 10 10 TARIC?
annul Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries), in so far as it affects the appellants;

in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the appellants by Article 2(g) and (h) of that decision;

in the alternative, in the event that the foregoing claim is dismissed, amend Article 2(g) and (h) of the decision, so that SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH is jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the fine imposed on the appellants; the appellants understand this alternative claim in the way the General Court has understood it in paragraphs 264 and 265 of the judgment, namely as an alternative claim for an increase in the proportion of the fine imposed on the appellants, which is considered to be paid when SKW pays the fine imposed on them by the Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/17

Appeal brought on 15 April 2014 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2014 in Case T-528/09: Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union

(Case C-193/14 P)

2014/C 212/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, B. O'Connor, Solicitor, S. Gubel, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd, European Commission, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s., ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Benteler Deutschland GmbH, formerly Benteler Stahl//Rohr GmbH, Ovako Tube & Ring AB, Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH, Dalmine SpA, Silcotub SA, TMK-Artrom SA, Tubos Reunidos, SA, Vallourec Oil and Gas France, formerly Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France, Vallourec Tubes France, formerly V & M France, Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, formerly V & M Deutschland GmbH, voestalpine Tubulars GmbH, Železiarne Podbrezová a.s.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 26 January 2014 in Case C-528/09 ‘Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union’;

— reject the first limb of the third plea in law put forward by the applicants at first instance as unfounded in law;

— refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration for the remaining pleas in law at first instance to the extent that the facts have not been established by the General Court;

— order Hubei to pay the Council’s costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Council maintains that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds:

— first, the General Court infringed Article 3(5) of the basic A-D Regulation (1) and distorted the clear sense of the evidence before it, insofar as it made a selective and incomplete appraisal of the factors required by law to determine that the Union industry was in a vulnerable situation at the end of the IP;

— second, the General Court misinterpreted and then misapplied Article 3(7) of the basic A-D Regulation in relation to the foreseen collapse in demand;

— third, the General Court misinterpreted Article 3(9) of the basic A-D Regulation as to the threat of injury’s analysis;

— fourth, the General Court exceeded its jurisdiction, insofar as it substituted its own assessment of the economic factors under consideration to that of the Union institutions.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, OJ L 56, p. 1; replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (codified version), OJ L 343, p. 51
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 21 March 2014 — Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino v Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno

(Case C-131/14)

2014/C 194/13

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino

Respondents: Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno

Question referred

On a proper construction of Regulations No 1047/2001 (1) and No 2988/95, (2) is conduct such as that engaged in by Community operator A (Malvi sas) prohibited, and does it constitute an abuse of law and conduct designed to evade tax, where Community operator A (Malvi sas) — a company which does not hold an import licence or which has exhausted its own quota share — purchases certain consignments of goods from another Community operator B (Tonini Roberto & C sas), which in turn has purchased them from a third-country supplier (Bananaservice srl), the goods being transferred as foreign stocks to another Community operator C (L’Olivo Maria) — a company which holds a licence under the quota because it meets the requisite criteria — which, without transferring its own licence, releases the goods for free circulation in the European Union in order to transfer them, after customs clearance and in return for appropriate remuneration, lower than the specific duty for imports outside the quota, to operator B (Tonini Roberto & C sas), which finally sells them to operator A (Malvi sas)?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1047/2001 of 30 May 2001 introducing a system of import licences and certificates of origin and establishing the method for managing tariff quotas for garlic imported from third countries (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 35).

(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).