ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/22

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 29 October 2012 — Pelckmans Turnhout NV v Walter Van Gastel Balen NV and Others

(Case C-483/12)

2013/C 26/42

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pelckmans Turnhout NV

Defendants: Walter Van Gastel Balen NV, Walter Van Gastel NV, Walter Van Gastel Lifestyle NV, Walter Van Gastel Schoten NV

Questions referred

Must the principle of equality, which is enshrined in Article 6(3) of the Treaty on the European Union and in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Articles 15 and 16 of that Charter and Articles 34 to 36, 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding rules such as those contained in Articles 8, 9, 16 and 17 of the Law of 10 November 2006 on opening hours in commerce, crafts and services, in so far as the obligation contained in those articles that a weekly closing day be provided for:

(i) does not apply to traders established in railway stations or in units of establishment of public transport companies, to sales in airports and port areas open to international travel or to sales in petrol stations or units of establishment located in motorway areas, but does apply to traders established in other locations,

(ii) does not apply to traders engaged in the sale of goods such as newspapers, magazines, tobacco products and smoking accessories, telephone cards and National Lottery products, the sale of audiovisual media and video games and the sale of ice cream, but does apply to traders who offer other goods for sale,

(iii) applies only to the retail trade, namely to undertakings which are engaged in sales to consumers, whilst it does not apply to other traders,
1.

Primarily — was it necessary, before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 754/2004, (1) to classify under heading 8471, or under heading 8528, a plasma colour monitor with a diagonal measurement of the screen of 106,6 centimetres, equipped with two loudspeakers and a remote control, and with an input device designed for the insertion of a video card (very inexpensive and easy to find and insert) which was not imported with the screen, but which, once inserted, meant that the monitor was capable of receiving composite AV video signals and could be connected, not only to automatic data-processing machines, but also to recording and reproducing apparatus, DVD players, video cameras and satellite receivers?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/24

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 5 November 2012 — Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins v Ministère des affaires sociales et de la santé

(Case C-492/12)

2013/C 26/47

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins

Defendant: Ministère des affaires sociales et de la santé

Questions referred

1. Does the specificity requirement for the profession of dental practitioner, laid down by Article 36 of Directive 2005/36/EC, (1) prevent the creation of a postgraduate university training course leading to a qualification which is common to medical students and dental students?

2. Must the provisions of the Directive on specialties related to medicine be construed as meaning that disciplines such as those listed in point 3 of this decision (2) may not be included in a dental training course?

(1) Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

(2) Namely, on the one hand, theoretical training in oral surgery including in particular training in surgery on the periapex and on odontogenic and non-odontogenic cysts of the jaws, pre-prosthetic and implant surgery, the study of benign tumour conditions, salivary conditions and orthodontic-surgical and orthognathic treatment, and on the other, practical training lasting at least three semesters in a specialist dentistry department and three semesters in a specialist maxillofacial department.
2.

Is the expression ‘minimum rates of pay’ in Article 3(1), first subparagraph, point (c) of Directive 96/71/EC to be interpreted as precluding national provisions or practices according to which payments by an employer are not be to regarded as part of the minimum wage and therefore cannot be counted towards fulfilment of the entitlement to the minimum wage, if the employer makes those payments on the basis of a collective agreement-based obligation, — and the payments, according to the intention of the parties to the collective agreement and of the legislature, have capital-generating objectives for the workers, and to that end, — the monthly payments by the employer to the employee are for long-term purposes such as contributions towards savings, the construction or acquisition of a residence or capital life insurance, and — are subsidised by allowances and tax breaks from the State, and — the worker is entitled to access those contributions only after several years have elapsed, and — the level of the contributions in the form of a fixed monthly sum is dependent only on the agreed working time and not on the salary paid (‘capital-generating contributions’)?
3.

Must point 14 of Annex I to the directive be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a pyramid promotional scheme to be recognised as a misleading commercial practice under that point, it matters only that the compensation is paid to the consumer already in the scheme primarily because he has introduced other consumers into the scheme rather than for the sale or consumption of products, or is the extent to which the compensation paid to participants in the scheme for the introduction of new consumers is financed by contributions of the new members nevertheless also of importance? In the case under consideration, must the compensation paid to the participants in the pyramid promotional scheme who joined it earlier be financed entirely or to a large extent by the contributions of the members who are fresh entrants into the scheme?
1.

Is Article 1(4) in conjunction with Article 3 [of Council Directive 91/477/EEC (1) (‘the Directive’)] and Articles 45(1) and 52 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] to be interpreted as (a) precluding a Member State from adopting legislation which would prevent a European firearms pass from being issued under Article 1(4) of the Directive to the holder of a firearms licence (the relevant authorisation to possess a firearm), which was issued for a purpose other than for hunting or target shooting use and which otherwise allows that person to possess (and carry) the firearm for which he is requesting that that European firearms pass be issued, despite the fact that: (b) the legislation of that Member State (the home State) allows the licence holder, even without the European firearms pass, to take that firearm out of its territory to the territory of another Member State provided, merely, that he meets reporting obligations, and, even where a European firearms pass was issued, the position of that licence holder would not change in any way in relation to that home Member State (that is to say, that person would only have to meet identical reporting obligations) ?
1.

May the first subparagraph of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it is possible to apply the results of the examination of part of the goods in a customs declaration also to goods included in earlier declarations which were not the subject of the partial examination, but which had been declared with the same Combined Nomenclature code, came from the same manufacturer and which, according to information concerning the name and composition of the goods on that manufacturer’s certificates, were identical to the goods in the declaration in respect of which samples had been taken for partial examination? In other words: Does the concept of ‘declaration’ within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 also include declarations in respect of which samples have not been taken for examination, but in which identical goods have been declared (that is, the goods are declared under the same Combined Nomenclature code, come from the same manufacturer and on the manufacturer’s certificates the same name and composition of goods are given)?
—

As regards the corrections in the cotton sector and specifically as regards the compatibility of the scheme to support the production of cotton with the Integrated Administrative Control System (IACS), the Hellenic Republic relies on the following grounds of appeal: — infringement of European Union law: incorrect interpretation and application of Articles 6, 7 and 17 of Regulation No 1051/2001 and of Article 10(1) and 2(c) and (e) of Regulation No 1591/2001 — insufficient statement of reasons — infringement of the principle of proportionality; — infringement of European Union law: incorrect interpretation and application of Article 17 of Regulation No 1051/2001 — insufficient and/or contradictory statement of reasons.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/55

Appeal brought on 18 October 2012 by Plamen Simov against the order of the General Court delivered on 13 September 2012 in Case T-271/12 Plamen Simov v European Commission and Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-465/12 P)

2013/C 225/103

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: Plamen Simov

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Republic of Bulgaria

By order of 21 March 2013, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) declared the appeal manifestly inadmissible.
4.

May Article 15 of the old VAT Directive and Articles 131 and 273 of the new VAT Directive be interpreted as meaning that, in the interests of preventing tax evasion, abuse and avoidance and of the correct charging and collection of tax, the Member State may also attach the conditions that are contained in Paragraph 11(1) of Law LXXIV of 1992 on Value Added Tax and in Paragraph 98(1) of Law CXXVII of 2007 on Value Added Tax to exempt exports?
2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative: on the basis of which discretionary considerations may the institution competent for family benefits in the Member State of employment apply Article 76(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 as if benefits had been granted in the Member State of residence of the members of the family?
4.

Does the requirement under Article 242 of Directive 2006/112 to keep detailed accounts for the purposes of verification of the right to deduct input tax mean that the corresponding national accounting legislation of the Member State in question, which provides for consistency with the international accounting standards applicable under European Union law, must also be observed, or does it refer only to the requirement to keep the VAT accounting documents prescribed in that directive: invoices, VAT returns and recapitulative statements? In the event that the second alternative is correct, an answer to the following question will also be required: Does it follow from the requirement in point (6) of the first paragraph of Article 226(6) of Directive 2006/112 that invoices must state the ‘extent and nature of the services rendered’ that, in the case of services, invoices or a document issued in connection with them must contain details of the actual provision of the service, that is to say objective, verifiable facts that serve as proof both that the service was in fact provided and that it was rendered by the service provider named on the invoice?
—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with 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, (2) or in any case by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 January 2013 — Martin Grund v Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein

(Case C-47/13)

2013/C 108/34

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Martin Grund

Defendant: Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein

Interested party: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Question referred

Is agricultural land permanent pasture within the meaning of Article 2(2) of the regulation (1) if used currently and for at least five years for the cultivation of grass or other herbaceous forage but during this period the area has been ploughed and instead of the previous herbaceous forage (in this case clover) another herbaceous forage (in this case field grass) sown, or do such cases constitute a crop rotation precluding the creation of permanent pasture?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18).
1.

Are Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Directive 2005/29/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), in the light of Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as Paragraph 151j(1) of the Občiansky zákonník (Civil Code) in conjunction with other provisions of the legislation at issue in the present case, which enables a creditor to enforce the fulfilment of unfair contract terms by enforcing a lien against a consumer’s immovable property without an assessment of the contract terms by a court, despite there being a dispute regarding the issue as to whether a contract term is unfair?
1.

Does Article 82 of Presidential Decree No 115 of 30 May 2002 on legal aid in Italian law — insofar as it stipulates that the judicial authorities are to make an order for payment in respect of the fees and expenses of the defending council which complies with the standard scale of lawyers’ fees in such a way that, they may not, in any event, be greater than the average amounts payable under the scales of fees in force relating to fees, court fees and emoluments, bearing in mind the nature of the professional commitment with reference to the impact of the tasks undertaken in relation to the procedural status of the defendant — comply with Article 47(3) of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights] of the European Union, which stipulates that legal aid is to be made available to those who lack sufficient resources insofar as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice?
1.

Was the decision of the Hungarian administrative authorities, within the framework of interim protection measures against highly pathogenic avian influenza, to order a protection zone and, within that framework, to ban inter alia the transportation of poultry consistent with Union law — Council Directive 92/40/EEC (1) or 2005/94/EC, (2) or Commission Decision 2006/105/EC? Was the decision by the Hungarian administrative authorities, within the framework of interim protection measures against highly pathogenic avian influenza, to amend some of the rules on protection zones and, within that framework, to ban inter alia the moving of poultry within the protection zone, together with the measure taken by those authorities in the form of an official opinion to the applicant (a decision against which there was no right of appeal), by which the authorities refused permission for the transport (introduction) of turkeys to a site within the protection zone and located precisely at the centre of infection, consistent with Union law — Council Directive 92/40/EEC or 2005/94/EC, or Commission Decision 2006/115/EC?
1.

Is Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (1) to be interpreted in such a way that it must be viewed as constituting ‘distribution to the public’ in a Member State of copyright-protected goods if an undertaking enters into an agreement via a website in a third country for the sale and dispatch of the goods to a private purchaser with an address known to the vendor in the Member State where the goods are protected by copyright, receives payment for the goods and effects dispatch to the purchaser at the agreed address, or is it also a condition in that situation that the goods must have been the subject, prior to the sale, of an offer for sale or an advertisement targeted at, or shown on a website intended for, consumers in the Member State where the goods are delivered?
1.

Does EU law, in particular the rules on freedom of establishment and on free movement of capital, preclude a resident of Belgium who, at his request, is taxed in the Netherlands as a resident and who has incurred costs in respect of a castle, used by him as his own home, which is located in Belgium and is designated there as a legally protected monument and village conservation area, from deducting those costs in the Netherlands for income tax purposes on the grounds that the castle is not registered as a protected monument in the Netherlands?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 164/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v ILME GmbH

(Case C-132/13)

2013/C 164/18

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

Defendant: ILME GmbH

Question referred

Are Articles 1, 8 and 10 of, and Annexes II, IV and III to, Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (1) to be interpreted in such a way that housings as a component of multipole connectors for industrial purposes are not to have a ‘CE’ marking affixed to them?

(1) OJ 2006 L 374, p. 10.
—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Article 2(1), (2), (4) — (18), (20), (22) — (36); the first, second and third sentences of Article 3(3), Article 3(6)(b); Article 12; Article 13(1), (2) and (5); Article 15(1) and (2); the second sentence of Article 16(1) and Article 16(2) and (3); Article 25(1); Article 33; the second and fourth subparagraphs of Article 36(4) and Article36(6), (8) and the third subparagraph of Article 36(9); Article 39(4)(a) and (b), points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 39(5) and the second subparagraph thereof; Article 40(a) — (e), (g) and (h); Article 41(1)(b), (c) — (f), (h) — (q) and (s) — (u), (4)(b) and (d), (6)(a), (7), (9), (10), (11) and (12); Article 42(1); Article 43(1), (4) and (8); Article 44(1), (2), (3), (6) and (7) and Annex I(1)(a), sixth and eighth indents, (b), (d), (f) and (h) and Annex I(2) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC (1) into national law in mainland Finland and the Province of Åland or, in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 54(1) of that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/12

Action brought on 20 February 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-86/13)

2013/C 123/19

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, D. Martin and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul the Council’s decision of 20 December 2012 by which it refused to adopt the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting, with the effect from 1 July 2012, the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission relies on three pleas in law in support of its action.

The first plea alleges infringement of Article 65 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1, 3 and 10 of Annex XI to the Regulations, in that, in the absence of any proposal by the Commission to apply the exception clause in Article 10 of Annex XI, the Council was required to adopt, before 31 December 2012, the proposal for the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union submitted by the Commission, in accordance with Article 3 of Annex XI. The Council does not have the authority to adopt a decision applying, in essence, Article 10, without an appropriate Commission proposal or without the participation of the Parliament, its co-legislator under Article 10.

The second plea alleges infringement of Article 64 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1 and 3 of Annex XI thereto, in that the Council failed to adopt, even though required to do so, the new correction coefficients to be applied to remuneration and pensions, which were proposed by the Commission in order to ensure equal treatment as between officials and pensioners irrespective of their place of employment or residence, as the case may be.

The third plea alleges complete failure to state reasons, since the Council simply stated that the qualified majority necessary for the adoption the Commission’s proposal in accordance with Article 3 of Annex XI was not reached, without explaining why it had disregarded the proposal. This plea is directed at both the adjustment of remuneration and pensions and the adoption of new correction coefficients.
—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Article 3(7) of, and the second subparagraph of point 1(a), and points 1(b), (c), (d), (f), (h) and (i) of Annex I to, 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, or in any case by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of such provisions, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of that directive;