do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-70/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu (Portugal) lodged on February 2014 — Agrocaramulo — Empreendimentos Agropecuários do Caramulo SA v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP)
Date: 2014-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural product nomenclature, export refund, poultry








C_2014135EN.01002301.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu (Portugal) lodged on February 2014 — Agrocaramulo — Empreendimentos Agropecuários do Caramulo SA v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP)
(Case C-70/14)
(2014/C 135/27)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Agrocaramulo — Empreendimentos Agropecuários do Caramulo SA

Defendant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP)

Question referred

Given that the Ministério da Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas, IFAP — Instituto de Financiamento de Agricultura e Pescas (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries), IP, held that ‘only goods included in the following are eligible for export refunds:






—


Export refund nomenclature code 0207 12 10 9900 , corresponding to what are referred to as ‘70% chickens’ which do not have completely ossified sternum tips, femurs and tibias, or










—


Export refund nomenclature code 0207 12 90 9190 , corresponding to what are referred to as ‘65% chickens’ which do not have completely ossified sternum tips, femurs and tibias’, and that the company actually exported spent laying hens (hens slaughtered at the end of their laying period, when their skeleton is completely ossified), is the product ‘spent laying hens’ included in the description of goods ‘Others’, with the product codes ‘
                  0207 12 10 9900 
                  ’ and ‘
                  0207 12 90 9190 
                  ’, indicated in Annex I of Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87, (1) amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2319/2002 (2) of 13 December 2002, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2180/2003 (3) of 5 December 2003, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2199/2004 (4) of 10 December 2004 and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2091/2005 (5) of 15 December, relating to the publication, for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, respectively, of the nomenclature of agricultural products for export refunds?’






(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds (OJ 1987 L 366, p. 1).

(2)  
            OJ 2002 L 325, p. 35.

(3)  
            OJ 2003 L 335, p. 1.

(4)  
            OJ 2004 L 380, p. 1.

(5)  
            OJ 2005 L 343, p. 1.
Case T-142/13: Order of the General Court of 10 February 2014  — Jinko Solar and Others v Parliament and Others
Date: 2014-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, dumping, import (EU), market economy, originating product, principle of legal certainty, solar energy, third country








C_2014142EN.01005402.xml










12.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/54





Order of the General Court of 10 February 2014 — Jinko Solar and Others v Parliament and Others
(Case T-142/13) (1)

2014/C 142/70
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.
Case C-71/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) (United Kingdom) made on 10 February 2014 — East Sussex County Council v The Information Commissioner, Property Search Group, Local Government Association
Date: 2014-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, database, environmental protection, fixing of prices, public authorities








C_2014102EN.01002501.xml










7.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/25





Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) (United Kingdom) made on 10 February 2014 — East Sussex County Council v The Information Commissioner,
Property Search Group,
Local Government Association
(Case C-71/14)
2014/C 102/34
Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: East Sussex County Council

Defendants: The Information Commissioner, Property Search Group, Local Government Association

Questions referred







1.


What is the meaning to be attributed to Art 5(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC (1) and in particular can a charge of a reasonable amount for supplying a particular type of environmental information include:






a)


Part of the cost of maintaining a database used by the public authority to answer requests for information of that type;










b)


Overhead costs attributable to staff time properly taken into account in fixing the charge?














2.


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






(1)  Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC

OJ L 41/26, p. 1
Case C-73/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Council of the European Union v European Commission
Date: 2014-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: UN convention, international court, law of the sea, maritime law








C_2014093EN.01002102.xml










29.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/21





Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Council of the European Union v European Commission
(Case C-73/14)
2014/C 93/35
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová, E. Finnegan, R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


annul the Commission's decision of 29 November 2013 to submit a ‘Written statement by the European Commission on behalf of the European Union’ to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Case 21 (1); and










—


order the Defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


By means of this application, the Council respectfully requests the Court to annul the Commission's decision of 29 November 2013 to submit the ‘Written statement on behalf of the European Union’ to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Case 21 (the ‘Contested Decision’).










2.


The Council considers that the Contested Decision, which was submitted by the Commission without the Council's approval and against the Council's will, is illegal because it infringes fundamental principles of Union law enshrined in the Treaties.










3.


The Council raises two pleas in law in support of its claim for annulment of the Contested Decision.










4.


First, by adopting the Contested Decision, the Commission infringed the principle of distribution of powers enshrined in Article 13(2) TEU and, consequently, the principle of institutional balance (first plea in law). Under the first limb of that plea, the Council submits that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is a body established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which adopts acts having legal effects and that, consequently, the position to be expressed on behalf of the Union before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea should have been established by the Council in accordance with Article 218(9) TFEU. Under the second limb of the first plea, the Council considers that, in any event, the Commission infringed Article 16(1) TEU by usurping for itself the policy-making functions which, under that Treaty provision, belong to the Council alone.










5.


Secondly, by undertaking the course of action leading to the adoption of the Contested Decision, the Commission infringed the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 13(2)TEU (second plea in law).






(1)  The Council does not request, at this juncture, the annulment of the Commission Statement to the Tribunal.
Case C-65/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 February 2014 — Charlotte Rosselle v Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité (INAMI), Union nationale des mutualités libres (UNM Libres)
Date: 2014-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil servant, compulsory insurance, gender equality, motherhood, occupational accident insurance, occupational safety, unpaid leave








C_2014129EN.01001301.xml










28.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 February 2014 — Charlotte Rosselle v Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité (INAMI), Union nationale des mutualités libres (UNM Libres)
(Case C-65/14)
(2014/C 129/16)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du Travail de Nivelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Charlotte Rosselle

Defendants: Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité (INAMI), Union nationale des mutualités libres (UNM Libres)

Intervener: Institut pour l'Egalité des Femmes et des Hommes (IEFH)

Question referred

Do sections 1 and 2 of title III, chapter III, of the Royal Decree of 3 July 1996 implementing the Law of 14 July 1994 coordinating compulsory medical care and sickness benefit insurance infringe Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (1) and Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (2) in failing to provide for an exemption from the minimum contribution period for a public servant assigned non-active status for personal reasons who is on maternity leave, whereas such an exemption is provided for a public servant who has resigned or has been dismissed?


(1)  
            OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.
Case C-72/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ‘s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 10 February 2014  — X, interested party: Directeur van het onderdeel Belastingregio Belastingdienst/X van de rijksbelastingdienst
Date: 2014-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, free movement of workers, migrant worker, social security, temporary employment








C_2014142EN.01001601.xml










12.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ‘s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 10 February 2014 — X, interested party: Directeur van het onderdeel Belastingregio Belastingdienst/X van de rijksbelastingdienst
(Case C-72/14)
2014/C 142/21
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te ‘s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: X

Interested party: Directeur van het onderdeel Belastingregio Belastingdienst/X van de rijksbelastingdienst

Questions referred







1.


In the Fitzwilliam
 (1) judgment the Court of Justice ruled that an E 101 certificate, issued by the competent institution of a Member State, is binding on the social security institutions of other Member States, even if the content of that certificate is incorrect. Does that decision also apply to cases such as that at issue here, where the designation rules of the Regulation (2) do not apply?










2.


Is it significant for the answer to that question that it was not the intention of the competent institution to issue an E 101 certificate, yet for administrative reasons it consciously and deliberately used documents which, judging by their format and content, appear to be E 101 certificates, while the interested party believed, and was also reasonably entitled to believe, that he had received such a certificate?






(1)  Case C-202/97 FTS [2000] ECR I-883.

(2)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition, 1971 (II) p. 416).
Case T-92/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Schniga v CPVO — Elaris (Gala Schnitzer)
Date: 2014-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: infringement of EU law, plant variety right








C_2014151EN.01002101.xml










19.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/21





Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Schniga v CPVO — Elaris (Gala Schnitzer)
(Case T-92/14)
2014/C 151/28
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Schniga GmbH (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elaris SNC (Angers, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision dated 20 September 2013 of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office in Case A 003/2007;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community plant variety right: The applicant

Community plant variety right concerned: Gala Schnitzer — Community Plant Variety Right No. EU 18759

Decision of the Committee of the CPVO: Upheld the Community plant variety right

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Found the appeal well founded and annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 61 (1) (b), 55 (4), 59 (3) and 62 of the Council Regulation No. 2100/94.
Case T-91/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Schniga v CPVO — Brookfield New Zealand (Gala Schnitzer)
Date: 2014-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: infringement of EU law, plant variety right








C_2014151EN.01002002.xml










19.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/20





Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Schniga v CPVO — Brookfield New Zealand (Gala Schnitzer)
(Case T-91/14)
2014/C 151/27
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Schniga GmbH (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brookfield New Zealand Ltd (Havelock North, New Zealand)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision dated 20 September 2013 of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office in Case A 004/2007;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community plant variety right: The applicant

Community plant variety right concerned: Gala Schnitzer — Community Plant Variety Right No. EU 18759

Decision of the Committee of the CPVO: Upheld the Community plant variety right

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Found the appeal well founded and annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 61 (1) (b), 55 (4), 59 (3) and 62 of the Council Regulation No. 2100/94.
Case C-66/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 February 2014  — Finanzamt Linz v Bundesfinanzgericht, Außenstelle Linz
Date: 2014-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: amortisation, basis of tax assessment, goodwill, shareholding








C_2014142EN.01001401.xml










12.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 February 2014 — Finanzamt Linz v Bundesfinanzgericht, Außenstelle Linz
(Case C-66/14)
2014/C 142/18
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt Linz

Defendant authority: Bundesfinanzgericht, Außenstelle Linz

Parties concerned: IFN-Holding AG, IFN Beteiligungs GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 107 TFEU (ex Article 87 EC), in conjunction with Article 108(3) TFEU (ex Article 88(3) EC), preclude a national measure under which, in the context of group taxation, goodwill is to be amortised in the case where a holding is acquired in a domestic company — thereby reducing the basis of assessment for tax purposes, and hence the tax burden — whereas such amortisation of goodwill on acquisition of a holding is not permissible in other cases of income and corporation tax?










2.


Does Article 49 TFEU (ex Article 43 EC), in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU (ex Article 48 EC), preclude legal provisions of a Member State under which, in the context of group taxation, goodwill is to be amortised in the case where a holding is acquired in a domestic company, whereas such amortisation of goodwill may not be carried out in regard to acquisition of a holding in a non-resident corporation (in particular, a corporation established in another EU Member State)?
Case T-89/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014  — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council
Date: 2014-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, economic sanctions, equal treatment, international sanctions, trade restriction








C_2014135EN.01004901.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/49






Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council
(Case T-89/14)
(2014/C 135/63)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Export Development Bank of Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant;










—


declare Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 inapplicable to the applicant;










—


declare decision 2010/413 CFSP inapplicable to the applicant;










—


in the alternative, annul the implementing regulation and the decision mentioned in the first two indents of the present form of order, as from 20 January 2014;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law of which eight are essentially identical or similar to those advanced in Case T-65/14 Bank Refah Kargaran v Council.
Furthermore the applicant relies on a plea in law alleging infringement of the principles of equality and of non-discrimination.