do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-532/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 November 2014  — Toorank Productions BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2014-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: alcohol, classification, interpretation of the law, liqueur








C_2015065EN.01002101.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 November 2014 — Toorank Productions BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-532/14)
(2015/C 065/31)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Toorank Productions BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Should heading 2206 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that a beverage with an alcoholic strength by volume of 13,4 % vol, obtained by mixing a purified, alcoholic beverage (base) known as ‘Ferm Fruit’, obtained by fermentation from apple concentrate, with sugar, aromatic substances, colouring and flavouring agents, thickening agents, preservatives and distilled alcohol — in the sense that that alcohol does not exceed, either in volume or in percentage, 49 per cent of the alcohol occurring in the beverage, whereas 51 per cent thereof consists of alcohol obtained by fermentation — should be classified under that heading? If not, should subheading 2208 70 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that a beverage such as that should be classified as liqueur under that subheading?
Case T-782/14 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2014 by DF against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 1 October 2014 in Case F-91/13, DF v Commission
Date: 2014-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: allowances and expenses, equal treatment, expatriate worker, indemnification, principle of legal certainty, redemption








C_2015089EN.01002801.xml










16.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/28





Appeal brought on 24 November 2014 by DF against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 1 October 2014 in Case F-91/13, DF v Commission
(Case T-782/14 P)
(2015/C 089/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: DF (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. von Zwehl, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2014 in Case F-91/13 DF v Commission, in so far as the action of the appellant as to the remainder was dismissed by the Tribunal;










—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 20 December 2012;










—


order the European Commission to reimburse the amounts already recovered by it to the appellant, plus late interest at the European Central Bank rate, increased by 2 points; and










—


declare that the European Commission bears all costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law:






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and the principle of legal certainty, in that the Civil Service Tribunal, in line with relevant case-law, should have come to the conclusion that it cannot be reasonably argued that one or the other of the two possible interpretations of Article 4 (1) (b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, namely whether the reference period of 10 years ends with the initial entry into service or with the entering into service at the entity of secondment, is so manifestly unfounded, that article 85 applies;










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination and of Article 19 TUE, in that, due to the application of diverging and incompatible national and EU law on unjust enrichment, the appellant is discriminated against compared to a situation in which only the national legal order applies, as he is not allowed to invoke against the Commission the fact that enrichment does not exist anymore;










3.


Third plea in law, invoking non-contractual liability of the EU, in that by deciding that the overpayment must be considered unlawful and imposing on the applicant to reimburse the overpayment to the Commission, damage to the detriment of the appellant has occurred.
Case C-533/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 November 2014  — Toorank Productions BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2014-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: alcohol, classification, interpretation of the law, liqueur








C_2015065EN.01002102.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 November 2014 — Toorank Productions BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-533/14)
(2015/C 065/32)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Toorank Productions BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred







1.


Should heading 2206 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that a beverage known as ‘Ferm Fruit’, obtained by fermentation from apple concentrate, which is also used as a beverage base for the production of a variety of other beverages, which has an alcoholic strength by volume of 16 % vol, which, as a result of purification (including ultrafiltration) is neutral with regard to colour, smell and taste, and to which no distilled alcohol has been added, must be classified under that heading? If not, should heading 2208 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that such a beverage must be classified under that heading?










2.


Should heading 2206 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that a beverage with an alcoholic strength by volume of 14 % vol, obtained by mixing the beverage (base) described in question 1 above with sugar, aromatic substances, colouring and flavouring agents, thickening agents and preservatives, and which does not contain any distilled alcohol, must be classified under that heading? If not, should heading 2208 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that such a beverage must be classified under that heading?
Case C-531/14 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2014 by Giorgio Giorgis against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2014 in Case T-474/12: Giorgio Giorgis v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2014-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, household article, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015389EN.01001201.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/12





Appeal brought on 24 November 2014 by Giorgio Giorgis against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2014 in Case T-474/12: Giorgio Giorgis v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-531/14 P)
(2015/C 389/14)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Giorgio Giorgis (represented by: I.M. Prado, A. Tornato, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Comigel SAS
By order of 2 September 2015 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) has dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Giorgio Giorgis to bear his own costs.
Case C-529/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 24 November 2014  — YARA Brunsbüttel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Itzehoe
Date: 2014-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dual-use good, energy-generating product, gas, heating, motor fuel, tax exemption








C_2015065EN.01002002.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 24 November 2014 — YARA Brunsbüttel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Itzehoe
(Case C-529/14)
(2015/C 065/30)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: YARA Brunsbüttel GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Itzehoe

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 1 of Directive 2003/96/EC (1) preclude national tax relief for energy products used for thermal exhaust air treatment or does the directive not apply to such energy products pursuant to the second indent of Article 2(4)(b) of Directive 2003/96/EC because use for thermal exhaust air treatment is a purpose other than as motor fuels or as heating fuels and this therefore constitutes dual use of energy products within the meaning of that provision?










2.


Is tax relief possible, if appropriate, for energy products used for thermal exhaust air treatment only if, in the thermal exhaust air treatment process, they also go into a product resulting from the treatment of exhaust air as a raw material, basic material or auxiliary material?










3.


Is tax relief precluded for energy products used for thermal exhaust air treatment if the thermal energy released in the treatment of exhaust air is also partly used for heating and/or drying purposes? Is such relief also precluded, as appropriate, if less energy is required for heating and/or drying than the energy which is available in the exhaust air and released in its thermal treatment?






(1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).
Case T-775/14: Action brought on 24 November 2014 — Red Lemon v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)
Date: 2014-11-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, supermarket, technology, trade-mark law








C_2015073EN.01003901.xml










2.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/39






Action brought on 24 November 2014 — Red Lemon v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)
(Case T-775/14)
(2015/C 073/50)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Red Lemon Inc. (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: T. Wieland and S. Müller, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: the applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark including the word element ‘ABTRONIC’ — Application No 8 534 811

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 September 2014 in Case R 2060/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and reject the opposition;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-535/14 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2014 by Vadzim Ipatau against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2014 in Case T-646/11 Ipatau v Council
Date: 2014-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belarus, common foreign and security policy, international sanctions, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2015026EN.01002001.xml










26.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/20





Appeal brought on 24 November 2014 by Vadzim Ipatau against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2014 in Case T-646/11 Ipatau v Council
(Case C-535/14 P)
(2015/C 026/24)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Vadzim Ipatau (represented by: M. Michalauskas, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014 (Case T-646/11),










—


give final judgment in the matter or refer the case back to the General Court for judgment,










—


order the Council to pay the costs, including the costs before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.
In the first place, the appellant submits that the General Court infringed the right to effective judicial protection by denying the filing of an application for legal aid any suspensory effect on the period prescribed for bringing an action for annulment against the contested measure.
In the second place, the appellant complains that the General Court infringed his rights of defence. The General Court held that the Council was not required to disclose to the appellant the evidence against him, nor required to give him the opportunity to be heard before the adoption of Decision 2012/642/CFSP (1) and Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012 (2).
In the third place, the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the grounds set out in the contested measures were sufficient.
In the last place, the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the contested measures were not disproportionate.


(1)  Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 285, p. 1).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 307, p. 7).
Case C-534/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo (Italy) lodged on 24 November 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Andrea Gaiti and Others
Date: 2014-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, interpretation of the law, invitation to tender, service concession








C_2015034EN.01001401.xml










2.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 34/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo (Italy) lodged on 24 November 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Andrea Gaiti and Others
(Case C-534/14)
(2015/C 034/15)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Bergamo

Parties to the main proceedings

Andrea Gaiti, Sidi Amidou Billa, Joseph Arasomwan, Giuseppe Carissimi, Sahabou Songne

Questions referred







1)


Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, considered also in the light of the principles set out in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10], to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past?










2)


Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, considered also in the light of the principles set out in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10], to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates










3)


Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, considered also in the light of the principles set out in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10], to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2014-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice (EU)








C_2014421EN.01000101.xml










24.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 421/1





Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

2014/C 421/01

Last publication


OJ C 409, 17.11.2014


Past publications


OJ C 395, 10.11.2014


OJ C 388, 3.11.2014


OJ C 380, 27.10.2014


OJ C 372, 20.10.2014


OJ C 361, 13.10.2014


OJ C 351, 6.10.2014

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu