ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-287/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 9 March 2018 — Fusignano Due Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 9 March 2018 — Fusignano Due Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

(Case C-287/18)

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Fusignano Due Srl

Respondent: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Question referred

Should Article 3(3)(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC ( 1 ) be interpreted — including in view of the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the overall system of rules introduced by that directive to incentivise the production of energy from renewable sources — as rendering incompatible with EU law national legislation which allows the Italian Government, in subsequent implementing decrees, to reduce or even remove incentives introduced earlier?

( 1 ) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).
Case C-281/18 P: Appeal brought on 24 April 2018 by Repower AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 21 February 2018 in Case T-727/16, Repower v EUIPO

Appeal brought on 24 April 2018 by Repower AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 21 February 2018 in Case T-727/16, Repower v EUIPO

(Case C-281/18 P)

Parties

Appellant: Repower AG (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, H.P. Kunz-Hallstein and V. Kling, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, repowermap.org

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the first paragraph of the operative part of the General Court’s judgment of 21 February 2018 in Case T-727/16, in so far as the action was dismissed;

— annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2016 (Case R 2311/2014-5 (REV));

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. EUIPO was not authorised to substitute the reasoning for the revocation in the proceedings before the General Court. EUIPO altered the subject matter of the dispute and infringed the right to be heard and the obligation to exercise its discretion.

2. The general principle of law authorising the withdrawal of an unlawful administrative measure did not apply in the present case. There is no legal gap in the legislation. The provisions of Articles 80 and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009 constitute a lex specialis.

3. Under Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009, the onus was not on the appellant to prove that a principle of withdrawal of unlawful administrative measures does not exist in the Member States.

4. Even assuming that such a general principle applies in the field of trade mark law, the conditions for revocation in full were not fulfilled by reason of the protection of legitimate expectations.
Case C-148/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Humbert Jörg Köfler and Others

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Humbert Jörg Köfler and Others

(Case C-148/18)

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Humbert Jörg Köfler, Wolfgang Leitner, Joachim Schönbeck, Wolfgang Semper

Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal

Interested party: Finanzpolizei

Question referred

Must Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a national provision which provides for fines with no upper limit, especially high minimum penalties or several years’ imprisonment for non-collectible fines for offences committed as a result of negligence?
Case C-298/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Cottbus — Kammern Senftenberg (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2018 — Reiner Grafe and Jürgen Pohle v Südbrandenburger Nahverkehrs GmbH, OSL Bus GmbH

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Cottbus — Kammern Senftenberg (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2018 — Reiner Grafe and Jürgen Pohle v Südbrandenburger Nahverkehrs GmbH, OSL Bus GmbH

(Case C-298/18)

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Cottbus — Kammern Senftenberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Reiner Grafe, Jürgen Pohle

Defendants: Südbrandenburger Nahverkehrs GmbH, OSL Bus GmbH

Questions referred

1. Is a transfer of the operation of bus routes from one bus undertaking to another as a consequence of a tendering procedure under Directive 92/50/EEC on public service contracts ( 1 ) to be regarded as a transfer of a business within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187/EEC, ( 2 ) even if no significant assets, in particular no buses, have been transferred between the two undertakings?

2. Does the assumption that, on the basis of a reasonable commercial decision, buses are no longer of major importance for the value of the business in the case of a temporary award of services owing to their age and more stringent technical requirements (emission values, low-floor vehicles) provide justification for the Court of Justice of the European Union to derogate from its decision of 25 January 2001 (C–172/99) to the effect that, under such circumstances, the taking over of a significant proportion of the staff can also result in Directive 77/187/EEC being applicable?

( 1 ) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).

( 2 ) Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1977 L 61, p. 26).
Case C-375/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 7 June 2018 — Hampshire County Council v C.E., N.E.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 7 June 2018 — Hampshire County Council v C.E., N.E.

(Case C-375/18)

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hampshire County Council

Defendants: C.E., N.E.

Question referred

Is it compatible with EU law and, specifically, the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 ( 1 ), for the courts of one Member State to grant an interlocutory injunction (protective measures) directed in personam at the public body of another Member State preventing that body arranging for the adoption of children in the courts of that other Member State where the in personam injunction arises from the necessity to protect the rights of the parties in enforcement proceedings arising under Chapter III of the 2003 Regulation?

( 1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003, L 338, p. 1).
Case C-265/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 17 April 2018 — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Akvilė Jarmuškienė

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 17 April 2018 — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Akvilė Jarmuškienė

(Case C-265/18)

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Respondent: Akvilė Jarmuškienė

Interested third party: Vilniaus apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Question referred

Must Articles 282 to 292 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC ( 1 ) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that in circumstances, such as those in the present case, where two goods are supplied by means of the same transaction but the annual turnover limit (the volume of activity) laid down in Article 287 of Directive 2006/112/EC (and in the corresponding provision of national legislation) is exceeded only on account of the supply of one of those goods, the taxable person (the supplier) is obliged, inter alia, to calculate and pay value added tax (1) on the entire value of the transaction (on the value of the supply of both goods) or (2) only on the part of the transaction whereby the aforesaid limit (volume of activity) is exceeded (on the value of the supply of one of the goods)?

( 1 ) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case C-329/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Supreme Court, Latvia) lodged on 17 May 2018 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA Altic

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Supreme Court, Latvia) lodged on 17 May 2018 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA Altic

(Case C-329/18)

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Other party to the appeal proceedings: SIA Altic

Questions referred

1. Having regard to the aim of ensuring food safety established in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 ( 1 ) (which is achieved, amongst other means, by ensuring food traceability), should Article 168(a) of Directive [2006/112/EC] ( 2 ) be interpreted as not precluding a refusal to allow deduction of input tax where the taxable person involved in the food chain, in choosing his co-contractor, has failed to demonstrate greater diligence (beyond normal commercial practice) entailing, in essence, a requirement to carry out checks on his co-contractor, but where he has at the same time verified the quality of the foodstuffs, thus meeting the aim of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002?

2. Does the requirement in Article 6 of Regulation No 852/2004 ( 3 ) and in Article 31 of Regulation No 882/2004 ( 4 ) concerning regulation of a food business, as interpreted in the light of Article 168(a) of Directive 2006/112/EC, require a party that contracts with that business to check that the business is registered, and is that check relevant for the purposes of determining whether that party knew or should have known that it was taking part in a transaction with a fictitious undertaking, having regard to the particular characteristics of the transaction in question?

( 1 ) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).

( 2 ) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

( 3 ) Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 1).

( 4 ) Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1).
Case C-289/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 26 April 2018 — KAMU Passenger & IT Services GmbH v Türk Hava Yollari A.O. — T.H.Y. Turkish Airlines

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 26 April 2018 — KAMU Passenger & IT Services GmbH v Türk Hava Yollari A.O. — T.H.Y. Turkish Airlines

(Case C-289/18)

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KAMU Passenger & IT Services GmbH

Defendant: Türk Hava Yollari A.O. — T.H.Y. Turkish Airlines

Question referred

Is an onward flight from the destination airport of the preceding flight which a passenger booked together with the first flight and for which he obtained just one ticket with one ticket number, where there is a scheduled period of just over 13 hours between the two flights, to be classified as a ‘directly connecting flight’ within the meaning of Article 2(h) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council? ( 1 )

( 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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case C-301/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn (Germany) lodged on 4 May 2018 — Thomas Leonhard v DSL Bank

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn (Germany) lodged on 4 May 2018 — Thomas Leonhard v DSL Bank

(Case C-301/18)

Referring court

Landgericht Bonn

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Thomas Leonhard

Defendant: DSL Bank

Question referred

Is Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/65/EC ( 1 ) to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that, after withdrawal from a distance consumer loan contract has been declared, the supplier must also pay to the consumer, beyond the sum he has received from the consumer in accordance with the distance contract, compensation for the benefit of use in respect of this sum?

( 1 ) Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (OJ 2002 L 271, p. 16).
Case C-348/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 29 May 2018 — Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele — Società semplice v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 29 May 2018 — Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele — Società semplice v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

(Case C-348/18)

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele — Società semplice

Respondent: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

Question referred

Must Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 ( 1 ) be interpreted — also in the light of the grounds already set out by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 5 May 2011 in Joined Cases C-230/09 and C-231/09 in relation to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 17[8]8/2003 ( 2 ) — as meaning that any unused portion of the national reference quantity allocated to deliveries can be re-allocated according to objective priority criteria determined by the Member States, or must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the equalling-out stage must be governed exclusively by the criterion of proportionality?

( 1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1).

( 2 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 123).
Case C-118/18 P: Appeal brought on 14 February 2018 by Hochmann Marketing GmbH, formerly Bittorrent Marketing GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2017 in Case T-771/15: Hochmann Marketing v EUIPO

Appeal brought on 14 February 2018 by Hochmann Marketing GmbH, formerly Bittorrent Marketing GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2017 in Case T-771/15: Hochmann Marketing v EUIPO

(Case C-118/18 P)

Parties

Appellant: Hochmann Marketing GmbH, formerly Bittorrent Marketing GmbH (represented by: C. Hoppe, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 28 June 2018 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 28 June 2018 — FR v Ministero dell’interno — Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della Protezione Internazionale presso la Prefettura U.T.G. di Milano

(Case C-422/18)

(2018/C 311/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FR

Defendant: Ministero dell’interno — Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale presso la Prefettura U.T.G. di Milano

Question referred

Are the principles of sincere cooperation and of the equivalence and effectiveness of judicial protection, referred to in Articles 4(3) TEU and 19(1) TEU, Article 47, first and second paragraphs, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Directive 2013/32/EU (1) (in particular, Articles 22 and 46), to be interpreted in the sense that (a) European Union law requires that, where national law provides for a right of appeal in proceedings concerning the rejection of an application for the grant of international protection, such an appeal should automatically have suspensory effect, and that (b) those principles preclude a procedure, such as that under Italian law (Article 35a(13) of Legislative Decree 25/2008, as amended by Legislative Decree 13/17, converted into Law No 46/17), under which the court seised by an asylum applicant — one whose application for asylum has been rejected by the competent administrative authority and by a court of first instance — is permitted to dismiss an application for the suspension of the adverse decision solely on the basis of the validity of the grounds of the appeal brought against that decision, where that decision has been given by the same court as is asked to rule on the suspension thereof, without any consideration of the risk of serious and irreparable harm?

(1) Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).
2.

If so, is it contrary to Article 49, Article 52 and Article 54 TFEU for national law not to allow an entity from another Member State, when relocating its place of business or place of management to the Czech Republic, to claim a tax loss incurred in that other Member State?
—

set aside the judgment of 11 April 2018 in case T-271/10 RENV, H v Council of the European Union, insofar as it rejects the appellant’s action seeking the annulment of the decision of 7 April 2010, signed by the Head of personnel of the European Union Police Mission, by which the appellant was redeployed to the post of ‘Criminal Justice Adviser-Prosecutor’ in the regional office of Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and, in the alternative, of the decision of 30 April 2010, signed by the Head of Mission referred to in Article 6 of Council decision 2009/906/CFSP (1) of 8 December 2009 on the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and insofar as it rejects the claim for damages due to the illegality of the above-mentioned decisions;
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 9 July 2018 — AGROBET CZ, s.r.o. v Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj

(Case C-446/18)

(2018/C 328/36)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant (appellant): AGROBET CZ, s.r.o.

Defendant: Finanční úřad pro Středočeský kraj

Question referred

Is it consistent with European Union law and in particular with the principle of VAT neutrality for a Member State to adopt a measure which makes the assessment and payment of part of a VAT deduction claimed conditional on the completion of a procedure applying to all taxable transactions in a given tax period?
2.

Depending on the interpretation to be given to Article 13(1) and (3) of the Directive, do those provisions, in so far as they apply to names and trade marks, comply with the right to property, freedom of expression, the freedom to conduct a business and the principles of proportionality and legal certainty?
1.

Is Article 4(1)(a) of the Framework Decision (1) to be interpreted to the effect that the criteria set out therein are satisfied only when the sentenced person has, in the Member State of his nationality, such family, social, professional or other links that it is possible to reasonably assume from those links that enforcement in that State of the sentence may facilitate his social rehabilitation, and as therefore precluding national legislation such as Paragraph 4(1)(a) of Law No 549/2011 [Zákon č. 549/2011 o uznávaní a výkone rozhodnutí, ktorými sa ukladá trestná sankcia spojená s odňatím slobody v Európskej únii a o zmene a doplnení zákona č. 221/2006 o výkone väzby v znení neskorších predpisov] which, in such cases, enables a judgment to be recognised and enforced in the event of merely formally-recorded habitual residence in the executing State, regardless of whether the sentenced person has concrete links in that State which could enhance his social rehabilitation.
Appeal brought on 12 July 2018 by HK against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 3 May 2018 in Case T-574/16 HK v Commission

(Case C-460/18 P)

(2018/C 381/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: HK (represented by: A. Champetier, S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Declare that the appeal is admissible and well founded;

— Annul the judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 (Case T-574/16);

— Dispose of the case itself by upholding the claims made at first instance by the appellant, including the claim that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs; or in the alternative

— Refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling and, in those circumstances, make an order as to the costs of the appeal in accordance with Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds. The first ground is based on infringement of the first paragraph of Article 17 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, and the ambiguous, incoherent and contradictory nature of the statement of reasons. The second ground is based on infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and the inadequate statement of reasons.
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative,

In that case, where a timely notification is amended on the basis of findings made during checks, do the conditions established by the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 10 January 2002 in British Sugar, C-101/99, EU:C:2002:7, for exceeding the notification time-limit stipulated in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3559/91, (3) also apply for exceeding a notification time-limit under Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 August 2018 — RD v SC

(Case C-518/18)

(2018/C 392/12)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RD

Defendant: SC

Question referred

Must Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims be interpreted as meaning that a claim which has been decided on after taking evidence may be regarded as uncontested if neither the defendant, who acknowledged the debt before the commencement of the action, nor the guardian took part in the court proceedings, and they did not raise any objections in the course of the proceedings?

(1) OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15.