do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-110/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Raggio di Sole Società Cooperativa Onlus v Comune di Ostuni, Consorzio per l’Inclusione Sociale dell’Ats Fasano — Ostuni — Cisternino
Date: 2019-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, award of contract, freedom of movement, freedom to provide services, national law, principle of legal certainty, public procurement, right of establishment, tendering








C_2019182EN.01001301.xml










27.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Raggio di Sole Società Cooperativa Onlus v Comune di Ostuni, Consorzio per l’Inclusione Sociale dell’Ats Fasano — Ostuni — Cisternino
(Case C-110/19)
(2019/C 182/16)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Raggio di Sole Società Cooperativa Onlus

Defendants: Comune di Ostuni, Consorzio per l’Inclusione Sociale dell’Ats Fasano — Ostuni — Cisternino

Question referred

Does EU law (in particular the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, freedom of movement, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services) preclude a national legislative provision, such as Article 83(9), Article 95(10) and Article 97(5) of the Italian ‘Codice dei contratti pubblici’ (‘Public Procurement Code’), under which failure to indicate labour costs and costs relating to the safety of workers by a tenderer in a public procurement procedure results in any event in the tenderer being excluded from the procedure without the tenderer being given, at a later stage, the benefit of the ‘soccorso istruttorio’ procedure (whereby a tenderer is given an opportunity to remedy shortcomings in his tender documentation after submission of his tender), even where the existence of such an obligation to indicate those costs is apparent from sufficiently clear legal provisions in the public domain and irrespective of the fact that the contract notice does not expressly refer to the legal obligation to provide specific information?
Case C-498/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — ZW v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Date: 2019-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, civil liability proceedings, damages, international convention, limitation of legal proceedings, transport regulations








C_2019172EN.01002503.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/25






Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — ZW v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
(Case C-498/18) (1)

(2019/C 172/34)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
Case C-111/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Industria Italiana Autobus SpA v Comune di Palermo
Date: 2019-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, award of contract, freedom of movement, freedom to provide services, invitation to tender, national law, principle of legal certainty, public procurement, right of establishment








C_2019182EN.01001401.xml










27.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Industria Italiana Autobus SpA v Comune di Palermo
(Case C-111/19)
(2019/C 182/17)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Industria Italiana Autobus SpA

Defendant: Comune di Palermo

Question referred

Does EU law (in particular the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, freedom of movement, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services) preclude a national legislative provision, such as Article 83(9), Article 95(10) and Article 97(5) of the Italian ‘Codice dei contratti pubblici’ (‘Public Procurement Code’), under which failure to indicate labour costs and costs relating to the safety of workers by a tenderer in a public procurement procedure results in any event in the tenderer being excluded from the procedure without the tenderer being given, at a later stage, the benefit of the ‘soccorso istruttorio’ procedure (whereby a tenderer is given an opportunity to remedy shortcomings in his tender documentation after submission of his tender), even where the existence of such an obligation to indicate those costs is apparent from sufficiently clear legal provisions in the public domain and irrespective of the fact that the contract notice does not expressly refer to the legal obligation to provide specific information?
Case C-104/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Donex Shipping and Forwarding B.V., other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2019-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, India, anti-dumping duty, bolt and screw industry, import (EU), iron and steel product, originating product








C_2019155EN.01002801.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Donex Shipping and Forwarding B.V., other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-104/19)
(2019/C 155/34)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Donex Shipping and Forwarding BV

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred







1.


Is Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 (1) invalid in respect of an EU importer due to the infringement of Article 2(11) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) in so far as the Council, in determining the dumping margin for the relevant products of non-cooperating Chinese exporting producers, excluded the export transactions of certain types of the product from the comparison referred to in that article?










2.


Is Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 invalid in respect of an EU importer due to the infringement of Article 2(10) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 in so far as, in the context of calculating the magnitude of the dumping margin for the products concerned, the institutions of the Union refused to take into account, when comparing the normal value of the products of an Indian producer with the export prices of similar Chinese products, adjustments relating to import duties on raw materials and indirect taxes in the analogue country India and to differences in production (costs) and/or in so far as the institutions of the Union, during the investigation, did not provide cooperating Chinese exporting producers (in a timely manner) with all the data of the Indian producer with regard to the determination of the normal value?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).