do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-569/15: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2016 — Fondazione Casamica v Commission and EASME
Date: 2016-03-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Campania, archaeology, consortium, executive agency, invitation to tender, public authorities, small and medium-sized enterprises, tourism








C_2016156EN.01005403.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/54






Order of the General Court of 14 March 2016 — Fondazione Casamica v Commission and EASME
(Case T-569/15) (1)

(2016/C 156/75)
Language of the case: Italian
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  
            OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
Case T-181/15: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2016 — Sopra Steria Group v Parliament (Public service contracts — Decision of the Parliament to launch a negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice for the provision of IT services — Withdrawal of the act — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2016-03-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, invitation to tender, tendering








C_2016191EN.01003002.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/30





Order of the General Court of 14 March 2016 — Sopra Steria Group v Parliament
(Case T-181/15) (1)

((Public service contracts - Decision of the Parliament to launch a negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice for the provision of IT services - Withdrawal of the act - No need to adjudicate))
(2016/C 191/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sopra Steria Group SA (Annecy-le-Vieux, France) (represented by: A. Verlinden, R. Martens and J. Joossen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Tapper Brandberg and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision to use the negotiated procedure PE/ITEC-NPE-15.8 without prior publication of a contract notice for the provision of IT services to the Parliament and to other institutions and agencies of the European Union.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Parliament is to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
Case C-152/16: Action brought on 14 March 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2016-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, access to a profession, access to information, administrative cooperation, carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, infringement of EU law, professional qualifications, recognition of diplomas, road transport








C_2016191EN.01001302.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/13





Action brought on 14 March 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Case C-152/16)
(2016/C 191/17)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought







—


declare that by failing to create its national electronic register of road transport undertakings and interconnecting it with the national electronic registers of the other Member States, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC (1);










—


order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 16(1) of Regulation No 1071/2009 provides that each Member State is to keep a national electronic register of road transport undertakings which have been authorised by the competent national authority to engage in the occupation of road transport operator.
However, it is apparent from the answer given by the Luxembourg State to the letter of formal notice that such a national register has not been set up.
It follows that the Luxembourg State has failed to comply with Article 16(1) of Regulation No 1071/2009.
Under Article 16(5) of Regulation No 1071/2009, the Member States are required to take all necessary measures to ensure that the national electronic registers are interconnected and accessible throughout the European Union.
As it does not even have a national register, there can be no doubt that the Luxembourg Administration has not taken the measures necessary to interconnect its national register (which it does not have) with other national registers.
That being the case, the Luxembourg State has failed to comply with Article 16(5) of Regulation No 1071/2009.


(1)  OJ 2009 L 300, p. 51.
Case C-144/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Setúbal (Portugal) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Município de Palmela v ASAE -Divisão de Gestão de Contraordenações
Date: 2016-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, access to information, building regulations, exchange of information, safety standard, technical standard








C_2016211EN.01002702.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Setúbal (Portugal) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Município de Palmela v ASAE -Divisão de Gestão de Contraordenações
(Case C-144/16)
(2016/C 211/35)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Setúbal

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Município de Palmela

Defendants: ASAE — Divisão de Gestão de Contraordenações

Questions referred







(a)


Considering that Decree-Law No 379/97 of 27 December adopted the Regulation setting out mandatory safety requirements regarding the localisation, implementation, design and functional organisation of play and recreation areas and their equipment and impact surfaces;










(b)


Considering that Decree-Law No 119/2009 of 19 May amended Decree-Law No 379/97 of 27 December, amending the wording of certain technical standards and adding other technical standards, and republished that Regulation of which it forms part;










(c)


Considering that neither of the two above-mentioned national legislative texts were notified to the European Commission in the context of a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations set out in Directive 98/34/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998, amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 and transposed into national law by Decree-Law No 58/2000 of 18 April:






1.


Must the national court declare that a national legislative text is entirely inapplicable if it introduces technical standards and, in breach of the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC, it has not been notified to the European Commission, or must the court’s declaration of inapplicability be limited to the new technical regulations introduced by the national legislative text? Or,










2.


Must a national legislative text be declared entirely inapplicable if it introduces technical standards and, in breach of the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC, it has not been notified to the European Commission, or must the declaration of inapplicability be limited to the new technical regulations introduced by the national legislative text?










3.


Are all the technical standards set out in the said Regulation inapplicable, or only those technical standards amended or introduced by Decree-Law No 119/2009 of 19 May?










(1)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998, L 204, p. 37).
Case C-151/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 March 2016 — UAB ‘Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla’ v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
Date: 2016-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU waters, cargo vessel, energy supply, energy-generating product, environmental tax, excise duty, fuel, tax exemption, tax system








C_2016191EN.01001301.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 March 2016 — UAB ‘Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla’ v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
(Case C-151/16)
(2016/C 191/16)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant:‘Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla’

Respondent: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 14(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 (1) restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, as last amended by Council Directive 2004/75/EC of 29 April 2004, (2) be interpreted as meaning that excise duty may not be levied on the supply of energy products in circumstances, such as those in the present case, in which those products are supplied as fuel for a ship to be used in navigation within [European Union] waters with the objective, not involving direct consideration, of sailing that ship under its own power from the place where it was built to a port in another Member State for the purpose of taking on its first commercial cargo?










2.


Does Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2003/96 stand in the way of provisions of national legislation of Member States, such as those applicable in the present case, which preclude the benefit of the tax exemption provided for in that provision in the case where the supply of energy products was carried out in breach of the conditions laid down by the Member State, even though that supply satisfies the essential conditions for application of the exemption set out in that provision of Directive 2003/96?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.

(2)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 100.
Case C-145/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Aramex Nederland BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane
Date: 2016-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, application of the law, motor vehicle








C_2016200EN.01000801.xml










6.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Aramex Nederland BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane
(Case C-145/16)
(2016/C 200/12)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Aramex Nederland BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane

Question referred

Is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 301/2012 of 2 April 2012 (1) concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature valid?


(1)  OJ 2012 L 99, p. 19.
Case C-146/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. v DHL Paket GmbH
Date: 2016-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, advertising malpractice, consumer information, electronic commerce, mass media, merchandising








C_2016243EN.01001502.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. v DHL Paket GmbH
(Case C-146/16)
(2016/C 243/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and appellant on a point of law: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V.

Defendant and respondent: DHL Paket GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Must the information concerning the geographical address and identity of the trader, within the meaning of Article 7(4)(b) of Directive 2005/29/EC, (1) appear in advertising material for specific products which appears in a print medium, even if consumers obtain the advertised products exclusively via a website of the trader who publishes the advertisement, and which is indicated in the advertisement, and consumers can easily obtain the information required by Article 7(4) of the Directive on or via that website?










2.


Does the answer to Question 1 depend on whether the undertaking advertising in the print medium is advertising sales of its own products and refers directly to its own website for the information required by Article 7(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC, or whether the advertising relates to products which are sold by other undertakings on an internet platform operated by the advertiser, and consumers are able to access the information set out in Article 7(4) of the Directive only through one or more steps (clicks) via links to the internet sites of those other undertakings which are made available only on the website specified in the advertisement?






(1)  Directive 2005/29/EC 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 (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).
Case C-148/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Riksåklagaren v Zenon Robert Akarsar
Date: 2016-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU police cooperation, European arrest warrant, extradition, judicial cooperation








C_2016175EN.01001202.xml










17.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Riksåklagaren v Zenon Robert Akarsar
(Case C-148/16)
(2016/C 175/14)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Riksåklagaren

Defendant: Zenon Robert Akarsar

Question referred

The question concerns the interpretation of Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA (1)).
Can a Member State refuse to execute a European arrest warrant, which concerns the execution of a custodial sentence which was passed as a combined sentence for a number of offences, when one of those offences does not constitute an offence under the law of the executing Member State and it is not possible in the issuing Member State to order that the sentence be split?
The offence in question does not constitute such an offence covered by Article 2.2 of the Framework Decision in respect of which the requirement of double criminality cannot be applied.


(1)  OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.
Case C-150/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA
Date: 2016-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, claim, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy production, power plant








C_2016200EN.01000802.xml










6.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA
(Case C-150/16)
(2016/C 200/13)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Craiova

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant at first instance and appellant: Fondul Proprietatea SA

Defendant at first instance and respondent: Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA

Questions referred









1.


Does the decision of the general shareholders’ meeting of COMPLEXUL ENERGETIC OLTENIA SA — adopted with the vote of the Romanian state, represented by the Ministerul Economiei — Departamentul pentru energie, which, as a shareholder, owns 77,17 % of that company’s share capital — by which it was agreed to extinguish SC ELECTROCENTRALE GRUP SA’s debt, totalling RON 28 709 475,13, to COMPLEXUL ENERGETIC OLTENIA SA, by way of transfer of an asset in lieu of payment, consisting of property registered under No 70301 in the land register for the municipality of Chișcani, Brăila district, and by which it was agreed at the same that ELECTROCENTRALE SC GRUP SA would be paid the difference between the market value of the asset and the sum owed to COMPLEXUL ENERGETIC OLTENIA SA, constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that is to say: (i) does it constitute a measure financed by the State or through State resources, (ii) is it selective in nature, and (iii) may it affect trade between the Member States?












2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, was such State aid subject to the notification obligation laid down in Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?
Case C-149/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Halina Socha, Dorota Olejnik, Anna Skomra v Szpital Specjalistyczny im. A. Falkiewicza we Wrocławiu
Date: 2016-03-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective dismissal, company in difficulties, remuneration of work, trade union, work contract, working conditions








C_2016222EN.01000301.xml










20.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Halina Socha, Dorota Olejnik, Anna Skomra v Szpital Specjalistyczny im. A. Falkiewicza we Wrocławiu
(Case C-149/16)
(2016/C 222/03)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Halina Socha, Dorota Olejnik, Anna Skomra

Defendant: Szpital Specjalistyczny im. A. Falkiewicza we Wrocławiu

Question referred

Must Articles 1(1) and 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) in conjunction with the principle of the effectiveness of [EU] law, be interpreted as meaning that an employer who on account of a difficult financial situation issues notices of amendment of pay and working conditions (notice of amendment) in relation to employment contracts only governing conditions of remuneration is required to apply the procedure arising from that directive, and also to consult on those notices with company trade union organisations, even though national law — Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Law laying down special rules on terminating employment relationships with employees for reasons unrelated to the employees (Ustawa o szczególnych zasadach rozwiązywania z pracownikami stosunków pracy z przyczyn niedotyczących pracowników) of 13 March 2003 (Dziennik Ustaw of 2003, No 90, item 844, as amended) — contains no rules on notices of amendment of employment contract conditions?


(1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.
Council Decision (EU) 2016/409 of 14 March 2016 appointing a member and an alternate member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2016-03-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Committee of the Regions, Spain, appointment of members








L_2016074EN.01003801.xml










19.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 74/38








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2016/409
of 14 March 2016
         
appointing a member and an alternate member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, of the Committee of the Regions


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,

Whereas:







(1)


On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020.












(2)


A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Luisa Fernanda RUDÍ ÚBEDA.












(3)


An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Roberto Pablo BERMÚDEZ DE CASTRO Y MUR,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:






(a)


as a member:






—


Sr. D. Francisco Javier LAMBÁN MONTAÑÉS, Presidente de Aragón;




and










(b)


as an alternate member:






—


Sr. D. Vicente GUILLÉN IZQUIERDO, Consejero de Presidencia del Gobierno de Aragón.











Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 14 March 2016.


For the Council


The President

M.H.P. VAN DAM
            





(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/116 of 26 January 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42).

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/190 of 5 February 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25).

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/994 of 23 June 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 70).