do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-97/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v ET
Date: 2018-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police cooperation, Netherlands, confiscation of property, criminal law, imprisonment, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, mutual recognition principle, national law, seizure of goods








C_2018182EN.01000701.xml










28.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v ET
(Case C-97/18)
(2018/C 182/06)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Nederland, sitting in Leeuwarden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: ET

Questions referred







1.


Can Article 12(1) of Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA (1) be interpreted as meaning that, when a confiscation order transferred by an issuing State is executed in the Netherlands, a term of imprisonment pending payment as referred to in Article 577c of the Netherlands Code of Criminal Procedure may be applied, having regard to, inter alia, the decision of the Hoge Raad of 20 December 2011 (2) to the effect that a term of imprisonment pending payment must be deemed to be a penalty within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the ECHR?










2.


Does it make any difference to the possibility of applying a term of imprisonment pending payment whether the law of the issuing State also makes provision for the possibility of applying a term of imprisonment pending payment?






(1)  Council Framework Decision of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders (OJ 2006 L 328, p. 59).

(2)  NL:HR:2011:BP9449.
Case C-101/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Idi Srl v Arcadis — Agenzia Regionale Campana Difesa Suolo
Date: 2018-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, composition, debt, financial solvency, tendering








C_2018166EN.01001902.xml










14.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 166/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Idi Srl v Arcadis — Agenzia Regionale Campana Difesa Suolo
(Case C-101/18)
(2018/C 166/25)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Idi Srl

Respondent: Arcadis — Agenzia Regionale Campana Difesa Suolo

Questions referred









1.


Is it compatible with Article 45(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 (1) to regard a debtor that has merely made a request to the competent judicial body to enter into an arrangement with creditors as being ‘the subject of proceedings’?












2.


Is it compatible with the abovementioned provision to regard a debtor’s declaration that it is in a state of insolvency and wishes to submit a preliminary request (the features of which are described above) to enter into an arrangement with creditors as grounds for excluding that debtor from a public tendering procedure, thereby interpreting broadly the term ‘the subject of proceedings’ used in the provisions of Community law (Article 45 of the directive) and of national law (Article 38 of Legislative Decree No 163/2006), cited above?






(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).
Case T-77/18: Action brought on 12 February 2018 — VE v ESMA
Date: 2018-02-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, illness, in-service training, indemnification, right to justice, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU), working conditions








C_2018134EN.01002601.xml










16.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/26





Action brought on 12 February 2018 — VE v ESMA
(Case T-77/18)
(2018/C 134/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: VE (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present appeal admissible and founded;










—


annul the applicant’s 2016 appraisal report in so far as it assesses the applicant’s performance as ‘unsatisfactory’;










—


together with, and so far as necessary, annul the decision of ESMA of 6 November 2017 which rejects the applicant’s complaint;










—


order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the Applicant, evaluated ex aequo et bono to 10,000 Euros; and










—


order the reimbursement of all the costs incurred by his lawyers for the present appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


Plea of illegality in that the appraisal manual has been adopted by ESMA without having been submitted beforehand to the Staff Committee in accordance with Article 110 of the Staff Regulations.










2.


Breach of Article 43(1) of the Staff Regulations and Appraisal Manual in that the defendant made several manifest errors of assessment:






—


manifest errors of assessment in relation to the main activities of the applicant as regard the criteria ‘Efficiency’, ‘Abilities’ and ‘Conduct’; and










—


as regard the errors of assessment committed by the defendant in relation to the other activities of the applicant.














3.


Breach of the duty of care and of good administration as regards the applicant’s health problems and as regard the lack of guidance provided to the applicant and adverse working conditions and the absence of adequate trainings.
Case C-100/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Línea Directa Aseguradora, S.A. v Segurcaixa, Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros
Date: 2018-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: compulsory insurance, damage, fire, indemnity insurance, motor vehicle, motor vehicle insurance, parking area, third-party insurance








C_2018161EN.01002301.xml










7.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/23





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Línea Directa Aseguradora, S.A. v Segurcaixa, Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros
(Case C-100/18)
(2018/C 161/26)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Línea Directa Aseguradora, S.A.

Defendant: Segurcaixa, Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, (1) preclude an interpretation that includes in the compulsory insurance cover the damage caused by a fire in a stationary vehicle when the fire has its origin in the mechanisms necessary to performing the transport function of the vehicle?










2.


If the answer to the question above is negative, does Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, preclude an interpretation that includes in the compulsory insurance cover the damage caused by a fire in a vehicle when the fire cannot be linked to previous motion, in such a way that no connection with a journey can be discerned?










3.


If the answer to the second question is negative, does Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, preclude an interpretation that includes in the compulsory insurance cover the damage caused by a fire in a vehicle when the vehicle is parked in a closed private garage?






(1)  OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11.
Case C-94/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 12 February 2018 — Nalini Chenchooliah v Minister for Justice and Equality
Date: 2018-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, freedom of movement, married person, removal, residence permit








C_2018152EN.01001501.xml










30.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 12 February 2018 — Nalini Chenchooliah v Minister for Justice and Equality
(Case C-94/18)
(2018/C 152/17)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Nalini Chenchooliah

Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Questions referred







1.


Where the spouse of an EU citizen who has exercised free movement rights under Article 6 of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) has been refused a right of residence under Article 7 on the basis that the EU citizen in question was not, or was no longer, exercising EU Treaty Rights in the host Member State concerned, and where it is proposed that the spouse should be expelled from that Member State, must that expulsion be pursuant to and in compliance with the provisions of the Directive, or does it fall within the competence of the national law of the Member State?










2.


If the answer to the above question is that the expulsion must be made pursuant to the provisions of the Directive, must the expulsion be made pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Chapter VI of the Directive, and particularly Articles 27 and 28 thereof, or may the Member State, in such circumstances, rely on other provisions of the Directive, in particular Articles 14 and 15 thereof?






(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004, L 158, p. 77).
Case C-98/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 12 February 2018 — T. Boer & Zonen BV v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
Date: 2018-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: food inspection, food processing, food safety, meat, meat processing industry








C_2018152EN.01001502.xml










30.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 12 February 2018 — T. Boer & Zonen BV v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
(Case C-98/18)
(2018/C 152/18)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: T. Boer & Zonen BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

Question referred

Should the provisions of Annex III, Section I, Chapter VII, points 1 and 3, to Regulation No 853/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the cooling of meat must take place in the slaughterhouse itself — such that the loading of the meat into a refrigerated truck may commence once that meat has attained a maximum temperature of 7 degrees Celsius — or may the cooling of the meat also take place in the refrigerated truck, provided that the truck does not leave the premises of the slaughterhouse?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 55).
Case C-99/18 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2018 by FTI Touristik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 November 2017 in Case T-475/16, FTI Touristik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2018-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, air transport, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018182EN.01000801.xml










28.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/8





Appeal brought on 12 February 2018 by FTI Touristik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 November 2017 in Case T-475/16, FTI Touristik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-99/18 P)
(2018/C 182/07)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: FTI Touristik GmbH (represented by: A. Parr, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Harald Prantner and Daniel Giersch

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the Eighth Chamber of the General Court of 30 November 2017 (T-475/16);










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant claims that the judgment of the General Court is based on an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. (1) The judgment is inadequately reasoned. Not all of the factual circumstances, the interplay of which is essential to the assessment of the likelihood of confusion, were taken into account. This constitutes an error of law.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1), as amended (replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1)).
Case C-115/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal correctionnel de Saint-Brieuc — Chambre détachée de Guingamp (France) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Procureur de la République v Tugdual Carluer and Others
Date: 2018-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: industrial secret, market approval, plant health product, precautionary principle, testing








C_2018152EN.01001702.xml










30.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal correctionnel de Saint-Brieuc — Chambre détachée de Guingamp (France) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Procureur de la République v Tugdual Carluer and Others
(Case C-115/18)
(2018/C 152/21)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal correctionnel de Saint-Brieuc — Chambre détachée de Guingamp

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Procureur de la République

Defendants: Tugdual Carluer, Yann Latouche, Dominique Legeard, Thierry Leleu, Dimitri Pinschof, Brigitte Plunian, Rozenn Marechal

Questions referred







1.


Is Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (1) compatible with the precautionary principle when it provides no specific definition of an active substance, leaving it to the applicant to determine what it designates as the active substance in its product and granting it scope to focus its whole application dossier on a single substance, while its end product placed on the market is made up of several substances?










2.


Is the precautionary principle observed and impartiality of the authorisation to place products on the market maintained when the tests, analyses and evaluations necessary for compilation of the dossier are conducted by the applicants alone, who may be biased in their presentation, without any independent counter-analysis?










3.


Is the precautionary principle observed and impartiality of the authorisation to place products on the market maintained without publication of the application reports on the pretext of protecting industrial secrecy?










4.


Is Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 compatible with the precautionary principle when it takes no account of there being multiple active substances or of their cumulative use, in particular when it makes no provision for any comprehensive specific analysis at European level of cumulation of active substances within a single product?










5.


Is Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 compatible with the precautionary principle when, in Chapters III and IV, it exempts from toxicity tests (genotoxicity, carcinogenicity assessment, assessment of endocrine disruptors, etc.) pesticide products in the commercial formulations in which they are placed on the market and in which consumers and the environment are exposed to them, requiring only summary testing, which is always performed by the applicant itself?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).