do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-124/14: Action brought on 17 March 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic
Date: 2014-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, health care system, infringement of EU law, nursing staff, rest period








C_2014175EN.01002201.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/22





Action brought on 17 March 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-124/14)
2014/C 175/27
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the Italian Republic, by withholding from National Health Service ‘executive’ staff (namely, doctors) the right to a maximum average working week of 48 hours, and from all National Health Service medical staff the right to 11 consecutive hours of rest per day without guaranteeing them an equivalent period of compensatory rest, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 6 and 17(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC; (1)











—


order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Articles 3 and 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC require that the Member States take the measures necessary to ensure, first, that every worker is entitled to a minimum daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours per 24-hour period and, second, that the average working time for each seven-day period, including overtime, does not exceed 48 hours. Derogations from those provisions, although not entirely excluded, are nonetheless subject to specific conditions.
When transposing Directive 2003/88, the Italian legislature breached those provisions by excluding all National Health Service ‘executive’ doctors from the scope of the rules relating to the maximum weekly working time and all National Health Service medical staff from the rules relating to the daily rest period.
In particular, the Commission claims that, in the first place, in Italy all doctors who work in the National Health Service are officially classified as ‘executives’ by legislation and by national collective agreements relating to the National Health Service, without necessarily benefitting from executive prerogatives or autonomy over their own working time. In the second place, the Italian authorities have not been able to show that National Health Service medical staff, although excluded from the right to a daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours, none the less benefit from an adequate period of uninterrupted compensatory rest immediately after their period of work has ended.


(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9)
Case C-126/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas lodged on 17 March 2014  — Sveda UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
Date: 2014-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, delivery, intermediate goods, provision of services, tax relief








C_2014175EN.01002401.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas lodged on 17 March 2014 — Sveda UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
(Case C-126/14)
2014/C 175/29
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Claimant: Sveda UAB

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Interested third party: Klaipėdos apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

Question referred

May Article 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as granting a taxable person the right to deduct the input VAT paid in producing or acquiring capital goods intended for business purposes, such as those in the present case, which (i) are directly intended for use by members of the public free of charge, but (ii) may be recognised as a means of attracting visitors to a location where the taxable person, in carrying out his economic activities, plans to supply goods and/or services?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case T-169/14: Action brought on 17 March 2014 — Ferring v OHIM — Kora Corporation (Koragel)
Date: 2014-03-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014151EN.01002801.xml










19.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/28





Action brought on 17 March 2014 — Ferring v OHIM — Kora Corporation (Koragel)
(Case T-169/14)
2014/C 151/35
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kora Corporation Ltd (Swords, Ireland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 January 2014 given in Case R 721/2013-4;










—


Order the defendant and the intervener, should it intervene, to pay the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Koragel’ for goods in Class 5 –Community trade mark application No 10 490 027

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘CHORAGON’ for goods in Class 5 — Community trade mark registration No 8 695 314

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 (1)(b) CTMR.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 17 March 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39610(1) Power Cables — Rapporteur: Denmark
Date: 2014-03-17
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: cartel, electric cable, fine, infringement of EU law, inter-company agreement, market-sharing agreement, price agreement








C_2014319EN.01000301.xml










17.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/3





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 17 March 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39610(1) Power Cables
Rapporteur: Denmark
2014/C 319/03






(1)


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes an agreement and/or concerted practices between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU.










(2)


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the product and geographic scope of the agreement and/or concerted practices.










(3)


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the undertakings concerned by the draft decision have participated in a single and continuous infringement concerning high voltage underground and submarine power cables within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU.










(4)


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices have as its object the restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU.










(5)


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices have been capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU.










(6)


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the Commission has territorial jurisdiction to apply Article 101 TFEU.










(7)


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the duration of the infringement (1).










(8)


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission draft decision as regards the addressees of the decision.










(9)


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.










(10)


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.






(1)  Following the clarifications provided by the Commission during the second Advisory Committee one Member State competition authority withdrew its earlier abstention regarding question 7.