do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-357/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie (Poland) lodged on 27 June 2013 — Drukarnia Multipress sp. z o. o. v Minister for Finance
Date: 2013-06-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, company with share capital, indirect tax, interpretation of the law








C_2013274EN.01000501.xml










21.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie (Poland) lodged on 27 June 2013 — Drukarnia Multipress sp. z o. o. v Minister for Finance
(Case C-357/13)
2013/C 274/09
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Drukarnia Multipress sp. z o. o.

Defendant: Minister for Finance

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 2(1)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (1) (OJ L 46, 21.2.2008, p. 11) be interpreted to mean that a limited joint-stock partnership should be regarded as a capital company within the meaning of those provisions if it follows from the legal nature of that partnership that only part of its capital and partners are able to meet the requirements set out in Article 2(1)(b) and (c) of the Directive?










2.


If the first question is answered in the negative, should Article 9 of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ L 46, 21.2.2008, p. 11), which allows a Member State to choose not to recognise the entities referred to in Article 2(2) of the Directive as capital companies, be interpreted to mean that the said Member State is also free to choose whether or not to levy capital duty on such entities?






(1)  OJ 2008 L 46, p. 11.
Case C-359/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 27 June 2013 — B. Martens v Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap
Date: 2013-06-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Netherlands, Netherlands OCT, education grant, free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, migrant worker, residence








C_2013274EN.01000502.xml










21.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 27 June 2013 — B. Martens v Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap
(Case C-359/13)
2013/C 274/10
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: B. Martens

Respondent: Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap

Questions referred







1A.


Must European Union law, in particular Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68, (1) be interpreted as precluding the EU Member State — the Netherlands — from terminating the right to receive study finance for education or training outside the EU of an adult dependent child of a frontier worker with Netherlands nationality who lives in Belgium and works partly in the Netherlands and partly in Belgium, at the point in time at which the frontier work ceases and work is then performed exclusively in Belgium, on the ground that the child does not meet the requirement that she must have lived in the Netherlands for at least three of the six years preceding her enrolment at the educational institution concerned?










1B.


If Question 1A must be answered in the affirmative: does European Union law preclude the granting of study finance for a period shorter than the duration of the education or training for which study finance was granted, it being assumed that the other requirements governing eligibility for study finance have been satisfied?
If, in answering Questions 1A and 1B, the Court of Justice should conclude that the legislation governing the right of freedom of movement for workers does not preclude a decision not to grant Ms Martens any study finance during the period from November 2008 to June 2011 or for part of that period:










2.


Must Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU be interpreted as precluding the EU Member State — the Netherlands — from not extending the study finance for education or training at an educational institution which is established in the Overseas Countries and Territories (Curaçao), to which there was an entitlement because the father of the person concerned worked in the Netherlands as a frontier worker, on the ground that the person concerned does not meet the requirement, applicable to all European Union citizens, including its own nationals, that she must have lived in the Netherlands for at least three of the six years preceding her enrolment for that education or training?






(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475).
Case C-360/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 27 June 2013 — Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and others
Date: 2013-06-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, copyright








C_2013260EN.01002801.xml










7.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/28





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 27 June 2013 — Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and others
(Case C-360/13)
2013/C 260/50
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd

Defendant: The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and others

Questions referred

In circumstances where:






(i)


an end-user views a web-page without downloading, printing or otherwise setting out to make a copy of it;










(ii)


copies of that web-page are automatically made on screen and in the internet ‘cache’ on the end-user’s hard disk;










(iii)


the creation of those copies is indispensable to the technical processes involved in correct and efficient internet browsing;










(iv)


the screen copy remains on screen until the end-user moves away from the relevant web-page, when it is automatically deleted by the normal operation of the computer;










(v)


the cached copy remains in the cache until it is overwritten by other material as the end-user views further web-pages, when it is automatically deleted by the normal operation of the computer; and










(vi)


the copies are retained for no longer than the ordinary processes associated with internet use referred to at (iv) and (v) above continue;




Are such copies (i) temporary, (ii) transient or incidental and (iii) an integral and essential part of the technological process within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1)?


(1)  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
OJ L 167, p. 10
No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
Date: 2013-06-27
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, State aid, carbon capture and storage, control of State aid








C_2013182EN.01001101.xml










27.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/11





No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
2013/C 182/13
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:







Date of adoption of the decision


:


20 February 2013




Case number


:


72903




Decision number


:


74/13/COL




EFTA State


:


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


:


Norway — Aid to Norcem AS for the construction of a carbon capture research facility at its cement plant in Brevik




Legal basis


:


Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA




Objective


:


Environmental protection




Budget


:


NOK 69,6 million




Economic sectors


:


Cement production




Name and address of the granting authority


:







Ministry of Government Administration




Reform and Church Affairs




Akersgata 59




0030 Oslo




NORWAY








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:
http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/
Case C-575/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Eleftherios-Themistoklis Nasiopoulos v Ipourgos Igias kai Pronoias (Recognition of diplomas and other evidence of formal qualifications — Directive 2005/36/EC — Profession of physiotherapist — Partial and limited recognition of professional qualifications — Article 49 TFEU)
Date: 2013-06-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, interpretation of the law, paramedical profession, recognition of diplomas, recognition of vocational training qualifications








C_2013225EN.01001502.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/15





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Eleftherios-Themistoklis Nasiopoulos v Ipourgos Igias kai Pronoias
(Case C-575/11) (1)

(Recognition of diplomas and other evidence of formal qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Profession of physiotherapist - Partial and limited recognition of professional qualifications - Article 49 TFEU)
2013/C 225/24
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Eleftherios-Themistoklis Nasiopoulos

Defendant: Ipourgos Igias kai Pronoias

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU, of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) and of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25) — Refusal to grant authorisation giving access to the regulated profession of physiotherapist in a host Member State to one of that State’s nationals who does not have a diploma to that effect, within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 92/51/EEC, but does have qualifications for engaging in a similar profession that is recognised in another Member State — Possibility of partial access, limited to certain activities covered by the profession

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes partial access to the profession of physiotherapist, regulated in the host Member State, by a national of that State who obtained, in another Member State, a qualification such as that of medical masseur-hydrotherapist, authorising him to carry out, in that second Member State, part of the activities coming under the profession of physiotherapist, when the differences between the fields of activity are so great that in reality the applicant should follow a full programme of education and training in order to pursue the profession of physiotherapist. It is for the national court to determine whether that is the case.


(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
Case C-485/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/20/EC — Article 12 — Administrative charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations — National legislation — Electronic telecommunications operators — Requirement to pay an additional charge)
Date: 2013-06-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, France, Hungary, consumer protection, disclosure of information, dominant position, infringement of EU law, monopoly, national law, public sector, tax, telecommunications industry, transmission network, transport infrastructure








C_2013225EN.01000902.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/9





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-485/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 12 - Administrative charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations - National legislation - Electronic telecommunications operators - Requirement to pay an additional charge)
2013/C 225/14
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and G. Braun, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of France (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent), Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, K. Szíjjártó, K. Molnár and A. Szilágyi, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 12 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 (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) — Charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations — Compatibility of national legislation introducing an additional charge on electronic telecommunications operators

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain and Hungary to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.
Case C-492/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Mercato San Severino — Italy) — Ciro Di Donna v Società imballaggi metallici Salerno srl (SIMSA) (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Mediation in civil and commercial matters — Directive 2008/52/EC — National legislation providing for a compulsory mediation procedure — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2013-06-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, alternative dispute resolution, conciliation procedure (part of ordinary legislative procedure), interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU








C_2013225EN.01001101.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/11





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Mercato San Severino — Italy) — Ciro Di Donna v Società imballaggi metallici Salerno srl (SIMSA)
(Case C-492/11) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Mediation in civil and commercial matters - Directive 2008/52/EC - National legislation providing for a compulsory mediation procedure - No need to adjudicate)
2013/C 225/16
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di pace di Mercato San Severino

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ciro Di Donna

Defendant: Società imballaggi metallici Salerno srl (SIMSA)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di pace di Mercato San Severino — Interpretation of Articles 6(1) and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2008 L 136, p. 3) — National legislation imposing a compulsory attempt at conciliation before judicial proceedings can be brought, such as can affect the initiation, duration and the outcome of proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

There is no need to answer the question referred by the Giudice di pace di Mercato San Severino (Italy) by decision of 21 September 2011 for a preliminary ruling in Case C-492/11.


(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
Case T-89/12: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — Repsol YPF v OHIM — Ajuntament de Roses (R) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark R — Earlier national figurative mark R — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2013-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, oil industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013225EN.01007502.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/75





Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — Repsol YPF v OHIM — Ajuntament de Roses (R)
(Case T-89/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark R - Earlier national figurative mark R - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2013/C 225/167
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ajuntament de Roses (Roses, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 December 2011 (Case R 1815/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Ajuntament de Roses and Repsol YPF, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Repsol YPF, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.
Case C-149/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — Xeda International SA, Pace International LLC v European Commission (Appeal — Plant-protection products — Diphenylamine — Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Procedure for the assessment of active substances — Withdrawal by notifier of support for inclusion of an active substance in that annex — Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007)
Date: 2013-06-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: market approval, pharmaceutical product, plant health product








C_2013225EN.01003001.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/30





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — Xeda International SA, Pace International LLC v European Commission
(Case C-149/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Plant-protection products - Diphenylamine - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Procedure for the assessment of active substances - Withdrawal by notifier of support for inclusion of an active substance in that annex - Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007)
2013/C 225/49
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Xeda International SA, Pace International LLC (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu and N. Knight, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck, avocat)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 in Case T-71/10 Xeda International and Pace International LLC v Commission, by which that court dismissed an action seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2009/859/EC of 30 November 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (notified under document number C(2009)9262) (OJ 2009 L 314, p. 79)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Xeda International SA and Pace International LLC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.
Case C-569/12 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Emil Micsunescu against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-314/12: Micsunescu v Commission
Date: 2013-06-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, crime against humanity, indemnification, infringement of EU law, public authorities, rule of law








C_2013225EN.01005304.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/53





Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Emil Micsunescu against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-314/12: Micsunescu v Commission
(Case C-569/12 P)
2013/C 225/97
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Emil Micsunescu (represented by: R. Neagu, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 27 June 2013 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-06-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, air transport, inland transport, invitation to tender, public service, transport regulations








C_2013182EN.01000801.xml










27.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/8





Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 182/10






Member State


Italy




Route concerned


Olbia–Milan Linate and vice versa




Period of validity of the contract


Four years starting on 27 October 2013




Deadline for submission of tenders


Two months after the date of publication of this notice




Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligations can be obtained







Regione Autonoma della Sardegna




Assessorato dei trasporti




Via XXIX Novembre 41




09123 Cagliari CA




ITALIA




Tel. +39 0706067308




Fax +39 0706067338




E-mail: trasp.osp@regione.sardegna.it




Internet: http://www.regione.sardegna.it




http://www.mit.gov.it
Case C-566/12 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Erusalim Baleanu against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-311/12: Baleanu v Commission
Date: 2013-06-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, crime against humanity, indemnification, infringement of EU law, ownership, public authorities, rule of law








C_2013225EN.01005301.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/53





Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Erusalim Baleanu against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-311/12: Baleanu v Commission
(Case C-566/12 P)
2013/C 225/94
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Erusalim Baleanu (represented by: R. Neagu, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 27 June 2013 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.