do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-738/17: Action brought on 3 November 2017 — STIF-IDF v Commission
Date: 2017-11-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, France, Ile-de-France, State aid, bus, control of State aid, public transport, regional aid, restriction on competition, transport company








C_2018022EN.01004901.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/49





Action brought on 3 November 2017 — STIF-IDF v Commission
(Case T-738/17)
(2018/C 022/65)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Syndicat Transport Île-de-France (STIF-IDF) (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret and C. Rydzynski, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


partially annul the contested decision to the extent that, in Article 3, it classifies ‘the C2 contributions awarded by STIF under CT2’ as an ‘unlawfully implemented aid scheme’ but compatible with the internal market;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU vitiating the contested decision in the present case, namely Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1470 of 2 February 2017 on State aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île-de-France Region (OJ 2017 L 209, p. 24). Such an infringement was committed by the Commission in so far as it classified the C2 contribution of CT2 as State aid, considering that the measure conferred an economic advantage on its beneficiaries.
The applicant considers moreover that the Commission, in its analysis, commits several errors of law and assessment when it concluded that the fourth criterion of the Altmark case-law was not fulfilled in the present case.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the contested decision, relating to the failure to comply with the fourth criterion of the Altmark case-law and of the existence of an economic advantage.
Case T-734/17: Action brought on 3 November 2017 — ViaSat v Commission
Date: 2017-11-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, invitation to tender, satellite communications








C_2018022EN.01004802.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/48





Action brought on 3 November 2017 — ViaSat v Commission
(Case T-734/17)
(2018/C 022/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ViaSat, Inc. (Carlsbad, California, United States) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, L. Marco Perpiñà, and S. Semey, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s implied negative decision of 24 August 2017, resulting from the failure by the European Commission, under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, to reply within the prescribed time-limit to the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents of 10 July 2017 in relation to the access to documents request registered on 2 May 2017 under No 2017/2592, insofar as concerns information produced or exchanged in the context of a call for applications for pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs, including those of any intervening parties.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached its duty to state reasons under Article 296(2) TFEU.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to perform a concrete and individual examination of the requested documents.
Case C-621/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 3 November 2017 — Gyula Kiss v CIB Bank Zrt., Emil Kiss, Gyuláné Kiss
Date: 2017-11-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank charges, consumer credit, consumer protection, financial services, unfair terms of contract








C_2018022EN.01002901.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/29





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 3 November 2017 — Gyula Kiss v CIB Bank Zrt., Emil Kiss, Gyuláné Kiss
(Case C-621/17)
(2018/C 022/40)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria (Hungary)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gyula Kiss

Defendants: CIB Bank Zrt., Emil Kiss, Gyuláné Kiss

Questions referred







(1)


Must the requirement that contracts be drafted in plain, intelligible language, laid down in Articles 4(2) and 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (‘the Directive’), be interpreted as meaning that, in a loan contract concluded with a consumer, that requirement is satisfied by a contractual term not individually negotiated that specifies the exact amount of the charges, commissions and other costs (collectively ‘charges’) to be borne by the consumer, their method of calculation and the time when they have to be paid but does not, however, stipulate in return what specific services are covered by those charges, or must that requirement instead be interpreted as meaning that the contract also has to indicate what those specific services are? In the latter case, is it sufficient that the content of the service provided may be inferred from the description of the charge?










(2)


Must Article 3(1) of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that the contractual term used in the instant case in relation to charges, when it cannot be unequivocally determined, on the basis of the contract, what specific services are provided in return for those charges, causes, contrary to the requirement of good faith, a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract to the detriment of the consumer?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Case C-622/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 3 November 2017 — Baltic Media Alliance Ltd v Lietuvos radijo ir televizijos komisija
Date: 2017-11-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet, access to information, audiovisual industry, broadcasting, cable distribution, programmes industry, video communications








C_2018052EN.01001401.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 3 November 2017 — Baltic Media Alliance Ltd v Lietuvos radijo ir televizijos komisija
(Case C-622/17)
(2018/C 052/19)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Baltic Media Alliance Ltd

Defendant: Lietuvos radijo ir televizijos komisija

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2010/13/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services cover only cases in which a receiving Member State seeks to suspend television broadcasting and/or re-broadcasting, or does it also cover other measures taken by a receiving Member State with a view to restricting in some other way the freedom of reception of programmes and their transmission?










2.


Must recital 8 and Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services be interpreted as prohibiting receiving Member States, after they have established that material referred to in Article 6 of that directive was published, transmitted for distribution and distributed in a television programme re-broadcast and/or distributed via the Internet from a Member State of the European Union, from taking, without the conditions set out in Article 3(2) of that directive having been fulfilled, a decision such as that provided for in Article 33(11) and 33(12)(1) of the Lithuanian Law on the provision of information to the public, that is to say, a decision imposing an obligation on re-broadcasters operating in the territory of the receiving Member State and other persons providing services relating to distribution of television programmes via the Internet to determine, on a provisional basis, that the television programme may be re-broadcast and/or distributed via the Internet only in television programme packages that are available for an additional fee?






(1)  OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1.
Case C-619/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 3 November 2017 — Ministerio de Defensa v Ana de Diego Porras
Date: 2017-11-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, framework agreement, national law, severance pay, temporary employment, work contract








C_2018022EN.01002601.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/26





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 3 November 2017 — Ministerio de Defensa v Ana de Diego Porras
(Case C-619/17)
(2018/C 022/38)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Ministerio de Defensa

Other party: Ana de Diego Porras

Questions referred







1.


Must Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, contained in the Annex to Directive 1999/70, (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation that does not provide for any compensation for termination of a temporary replacement contract, to replace another worker who has a reserved right to his post, when such termination is due to the reinstatement of the replaced worker, but does provide for compensation when the contract of employment is terminated on other legal grounds?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, does Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement cover a measure such as that introduced by the Spanish legislature, consisting of fixing compensation of 12 days’ salary for every year of service, to be received by the worker at the end of a temporary contract even if the temporary employment has been limited to a single contract?










3.


If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, is a legal provision granting fixed-term workers compensation of 12 days’ salary for every year of service at the end of the contract, but excluding fixed-term workers from that measure when the contract is a temporary replacement contract to replace a worker who has a reserved right to his post, contrary to Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement?






(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).
Case C-625/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 3 November 2017 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG
Date: 2017-11-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, bank charges, credit institution, establishment, free movement of capital, freedom to provide services, group of companies, single market








C_2018112EN.01000502.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 3 November 2017 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG
(Case C-625/17)
(2018/C 112/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG

Defendant: Finanzamt Feldkirch

Question referred

Is legislation which imposes a charge on the basis of the balance sheet total of credit institutions contrary to the freedom to provide services under Article 56 et seq. TFEU and/or to the free movement of capital and payments under Article 63 TFEU if, for the purposes of the charge, banking transactions with clients in other Member States are taken into account for a credit institution with its seat in Austria whereas the same does not apply to a credit institution with its seat in Austria which enters into such transactions as the parent company of a group of credit institutions through a credit institution belonging to the group with its seat in another Member State, the balance sheet of which must, since it belongs to a group of companies, be consolidated with that of the credit institution acting as a parent company, because the charge is levied on the basis of the unconsolidated (that is to say, not included in a group financial statement) balance sheet total?