ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
4.

The General Court erroneously considered that the reasons given for imposing restrictive measures against Bank Saderat were not substantiated, insofar as: — it failed to take due account of the fact that the evidence for Bank Saderat’s support to Iran’s nuclear proliferation activities comes from confidential sources; — it failed to take due account of a reference in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1803 (2008) to Bank Saderat in connection with Iran’s nuclear proliferation activities; — it was mistaken to consider that the Council needed to produce detailed information concerning Bank Saderat’s handling of letters of credit of two designated entities involved in Iran’s nuclear proliferation activities.
2.

If so, must a parody satisfy the following conditions or conform to the following characteristics: — the display of an original character of its own (originality); — and such that the parody cannot reasonably be ascribed to the author of the original work; — be designed to provoke humour or to mock, regardless of whether any criticism thereby expressed applies to the original work or to something or someone else; — mention the source of the parodied work?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 April 2013 — K Oy

(Case C-219/13)

2013/C 178/12

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: K Oy

Other parties: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö, Valtiovarainministeriö

Question referred

Do the first subparagraph of Article 98(2) of and point 6 of Annex III (as that point appears in Council Directive 2009/47/EC) (1) to Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) on the common system of value added tax, when the principle of tax neutrality is taken into account, preclude national legislation under which a reduced rate of value added tax is applied to printed books, but the standard rate of tax is applied to books on other physical means of support such as a CD, CD-ROM or memory stick?

As regards the answer given to the question above, is it of any significance

— whether a book is intended to be read or to be listened to (an audiobook),

— whether there exists a printed book with the same content as a book or audiobook on a CD, CD-ROM, memory stick or other equivalent physical means of support,

— that a book on a physical means of support other than paper can exploit technical features provided by that means of support, such as search functions?

(1) Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards reduced rates of value added tax (OJ 2009 L 116, p. 18).

(2) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 189/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 12 April 2013 — Fazenda Pública v Banco Mais SA

(Case C-183/13)

2013/C 189/07

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fazenda Pública

Defendant: Banco Mais SA

Question referred:

In a financial leasing contract under which the customer pays rent, the latter comprising financial payback, interest and other charges, does or does not the rent paid fall to be taken into account, in its entirety, in the denominator of the deductible proportion or, conversely, must only interest be taken into account, since it constitutes the remuneration, the profit, accruing to the bank from the leasing contract?
1.

Does it represent an inconsistent restriction on the gambling sector where: — on the one hand, in a member state organised as a federal state, the organisation and intermediation of public games of chance on the internet is, in principle, prohibited by the law in force in the overwhelming majority of the Länder (federal states) and — without an established right — can only be allowed, exceptionally, for lotteries and sporting bets in order to provide a suitable alternative to the illegal supply of games of chance as well as to combat the development and spread thereof, but — on the other hand, under the law in force in one of that member state’s Länder, subject to certain specified objective conditions, an authorisation for the marketing of sporting bets on the internet must be issued to any EU citizen or equivalent legal person, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the restriction on the marketing of games of chance on the internet in force in the rest of the Federal Republic in achieving the legitimate public interest objectives which it pursues?
1.

Does Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), (1) including Article 32, preclude a Member State from laying down rules which do not allow an undertaking to lodge a claim against the Member State for separate recovery of the net costs of providing additional mandatory services not covered by Chapter II of that directive, where the undertaking’s profits from other services which are covered by the undertaking’s universal service obligations under Chapter II of that directive exceed the losses associated with the provision of the additional mandatory services?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 19 April 2013 — František Ryneš v Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů

(Case C-212/13)

2013/C 207/19

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: František Ryneš

Defendant: Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů

Question referred

Can the operation of a camera system installed on a family home for the purposes of the protection of the property, health and life of the owners of the home be classified as the processing of personal data ‘by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity’ within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Directive 95/46/EC, (1) even though such a system monitors also a public space?

(1) OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.
5.

Bearing in mind the definition of ‘information service provider’, laid down in Article 2 of Directive 2000/31/EC and Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC, could the following, or any of them, be regarded as a ‘mere conduit’ or ‘caching’ or ‘hosting’ for the purposes of Articles 12, 13 and 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC: (a) a newspaper that operates a free website on which the online version of the printed newspaper, with all its articles and advertisements, is posted in pdf format or another similar electronic format; (b) an online newspaper which is freely accessible but the provider obtains money from commercial advertisements posted on the website, where the information contained in the online newspaper comes from the newspaper’s staff and/or freelance journalists; (c) a website which provides (a) or (b) above for a subscription?
If the action referred to in question 1 above does not fall under Article 3(1) of Regulation 1346/2009 and/or the jurisdiction of the court in that regard does not extend to a managing director who is domiciled in a contracting party to the Lugano II Convention:

Does the case concern bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions or analogous proceedings within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b) of the Lugano II Convention?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 215/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2013 — Stefan Fahnenbrock v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-226/13)

2013/C 215/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stefan Fahnenbrock

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Question referred

Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 [of the European Parliament and] of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service [in the Member States] of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters [(service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action — in which a purchaser of bonds issued by the defendant that were in the safe-keeping of S-Broker AG & Co. KG, in the securities account of the applicant, and in respect of which the applicant had not accepted the defendant’s exchange offer made at the end of February 2012, demands compensation for damages in the amount of the difference in value relative to an exchange of the bonds that was nonetheless effected in March 2012 and which was economically disadvantageous for the applicant — is to be regarded as a ‘civil or commercial matter’ within the meaning of the Regulation?

(1) OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.
1.

Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and the principles of Community law concerning consumer protection and a balance in the parties’ contractual rights and obligations, be interpreted as meaning that they preclude Spanish legislation on mortgages which, although it provides that the mortgagee may request an increase of the security where the valuation of a mortgaged property decreases by 20 %, does not provide, in the context of mortgage enforcement proceedings, that the consumer/debtor/party against whom enforcement is sought may request, following a valuation involving the parties concerned, revision of the sum at which the property was valued, at least for the purposes stipulated in Article 671 LEC, (2) where that valuation has increased by an equal or higher percentage during the period between the creation of the mortgage and the enforcement thereof?
—

Adjudicating on the merits of the case, the annulment of the following acts: — Letter No 000841 of 2 February 2009 of the European Commission — Directorate General for Regional Policy — concerning ‘Payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested’ which contained the following decision: ‘Therefore, the date from which the European Commission will regard as non-eligible the expenditure incurred in relation to measure 1.7 of Regional Operational Programme 2000-2006 is 29 June 2007 and not 17 May 2006, as stated in the memorandum of 22 December 2008 referred to above’; — Letter No 001059 of 6 February 2009 of the European Commission — Directorate General for Regional Policy — concerning ‘Suspension of the request for payment and for information concerning financial corrections under Article 39 of Regulation No 1260/99 for the Campania Regional Operation’ which contained the following decision: ‘Therefore, the date from which the European Commission will regard as non-eligible the expenditure incurred in relation to measure 1.7 of Regional Operational Programme 2000-2006 is 29 June 2007 and not 17 May 2006, as previously indicated’; — Letter No 012480 of 22 December 2008 of the European Commission — Directorate General for Regional Policy — concerning ROP Campania 2000-2006 (CCI No 1999 IT 16 1 PO 007) — Outcome of infringement procedure 2007/2195 on waste management in Campania, by which ‘the Commission requests that, with effect from the next request for payment, all expenditure relating to measure 1.7 incurred after 29 June 2007 be deducted’.
—

Declare that, since part of the municipal waste going to the landfills of the Rome SubATO (sotto ambito territoriale ottimale; the subdivision of the Optimal Territorial Ambit), including the Malagrotta landfill and those of the Latina SubATO, does not undergo treatment including a proper sorting of the various fractions of the waste and the stabilisation of the organic fraction, and since an integrated and adequate network of waste disposal installations, which takes account of the best available technology, has not been created in Lazio, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(a) of Directive 1999/31/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Article 1(1) of Directive 1999/31/EC and with Articles 4 and 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC, (2) and under Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC;
3.

Is an exporter, who initially submitted forged customs documents in relation to the arrival of the exported product in the country of destination, able to submit valid customs documents to preserve his entitlement even after the expiry of the time-limits for submission laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, if the delayed submission has not delayed or hindered the handling of the payment procedure because the application for a refund was initially rejected as a result of reasons other than the failure to submit such proof of arrival at destination and such proof is submitted after the forgery of those documents has been recognised?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/27

Action brought on 25 June 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-351/13)

2013/C 260/48

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Markoulli and B. Schima)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to ensure that from 1 January 2012 laying hens are no longer reared in unenriched cage systems, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 and Article 5(2) of Council Directive 1999/74/EC (1) of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 5(2) of Directive 1999/74/EC prohibits the rearing of laying hens in unenriched cage systems from 1 January 2012. In addition, Article 3 of Directive 1999/74/EC provides that the Member States are obliged to ensure that owners and holders apply in respect of laying hens only the rearing systems that are permitted by the directive.

The Commission directed the Member States’ attention to their obligations to comply with the abovementioned provisions of the directive from 2011. In accordance with the information which was supplied by the Hellenic Republic, it was clear that a significant number of owners and holders of establishments with laying hens would not be able to comply with the Hellenic Republic’s obligations under Directive 1999/74/EC by the date for compliance which is laid down by that directive.

It is apparent from the information which the Hellenic Republic has provided in the pre-litigation procedure and from more recent updates of that information that the Hellenic Republic has still not succeeded in complying with its obligations under Article 3 and Article 5(2) of Directive 1999/74/EC.

(1) OJ 1999 L 203, p. 53.
1.

Is Article 160 of Legislative Decree No 259/2003, which provides the basis for the government concession tax charged at the tariff indicated in Article 21 of [the Annex to] Presidential Decree No 641/1972, consistent with Article 3 of Directive 20/2002/EC, (1) which, within the liberalised system for communications, prohibits administrative authorities from having the power of control which is used to justify the charge imposed on service users?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 24 May 2013 — T-Mobile Austria GmbH v Telekom-Control-Kommission

(Case C-282/13)

2013/C 260/35

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: T-Mobile Austria GmbH

Respondent authority: Telekom-Control-Kommission

Interveners: Hutchison 3 G Austria Holdings GmbH, Hutchison 3G Austria GmbH, Orange Austria Telecommunication GmbH, Stubai SCA, Orange Belgium SA, A1 Telekom Austria AG

Additional party: Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technolgie

Question referred

Are Articles 4 and 9b of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and Article 5(6) of Directive 2002/20/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) to be interpreted as meaning that they confer on a competitor the status, in a national procedure under Article 5(6) of the Authorisation Directive, of an undertaking which is affected within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive?

(1) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

(2) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21, amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2009 L 337, p. 37).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/10

Action brought on 12 July 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-395/13)

2013/C 274/18

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to make provision for the collection and treatment of urban waste water in 57 agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 2 000 and less than 10 000, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment; (1)

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the Commission claims that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to implement correctly, in 57 agglomerations, Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment.

Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Directive 91/271/EEC required agglomerations with a population equivalent (p.e.) between 2 000 and 10 000 to be provided with collecting systems at the latest by 31 December 2005.

As regards urban waste water treatment obligations, Article 4(1) of the directive requires the Member States to ensure that waste water entering collecting systems is subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment before being discharged.

Lastly, the control procedures laid down in Annex I D to the directive make it possible to ascertain whether discharges from urban waste water treatment plants comply with the requirements of the directive pertaining to the discharge of waste water.

(1) OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.
4.

Is the fact that, in the case examined in the national court, no specific measures have been laid down providing for the functions of the relevant State authorities when there are legal disputes concerning the actions or inaction of the implementing, intermediate, managing or payment authorities connected with the assessment of the application, with selection, with adoption of the decision on the award of the assistance or with implementation of the project, that is to say, there is no provision that the relevant State authorities have an obligation to inform the European Commission about court proceedings that are taking place and to take measures so that funds that have been provided are reserved for the disputed assistance until the question of the award of the assistance has been finally decided, compatible with the Member State’s obligation under Article 38 of Regulation No 1260/1999 to inform the European Commission about the progress of administrative and legal proceedings and to cooperate with the European Commission, with Article 19 of Regulation No 2792/1999, and with the requirements of sections 6 and 7 of Commission Decision COM(2006)3424 establishing Guidelines on the closure of assistance (2000 to 2006) from the Structural Funds?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/17

Appeal brought on 16 September 2013 by GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 July 2013 in Case T-206/12 GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-495/13 P)

2013/C 325/29

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2013 in Case T-206/12 and annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 in Case R 411/2011-1;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is against the judgment of the General Court, by which it dismissed the appellant’s claim for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 1 March 2012 concerning opposition proceedings between Villiger Söhne GmbH and GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH.

The appellant puts forward a single plea in law, namely misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009. (1)

In support of that plea, the appellant alleges that:

The General Court misinterpreted the term ‘identity of the goods’ because it equated the goods ‘cigars’ with the generic term ‘tobacco products’. By so doing, the General Court unduly extended the scope of the opposing mark.

The General Court misinterpreted the term ‘similarity of the goods’ because in assessing the similarity of the goods it also should not have sweepingly considered the individual goods ‘cigars’ to be similar to the generic term ‘smokers’ articles’.

When comparing the signs, the General Court did not correctly apply the global assessment theory because it sweepingly compared the components ‘LIBERTAD’ and ‘LIBERTE’ and in so doing took no account of all the other components of the marks.

In particular, by correctly applying the global assessment theory the General Court should have attributed more significance to several other components of the marks at issue, including the colour combination of the mark at issue and the ‘LA’ label of the opposing mark.

The General Court also misapplied the principles established by the Court of Justice on conceptual similarity since it did not sufficiently take into account the different languages of the marks.

Overall, the General Court thereby came to a wrong conclusion.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark; OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/13

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 13 August 2013 — Belgacom SA v Commune d’Etterbeek

(Case C-454/13)

2013/C 313/22

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Belgacom SA

Defendant: Commune d’Etterbeek

Question referred

Must Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (‘Authorisation Directive’) (1) be interpreted as precluding the introduction, for budgetary purposes, by legislation of a national or local authority, of a tax on mobile communications infrastructures, installed on public or private property, used to carry on activities provided for in the general authorisation?

(1) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.