FranklinWillemen/mapa_plus huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court ( Fourth Chamber ) of 12 July 2018 ( request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy ) — VAR Srl , Azienda Trasporti Milanesi SpA ( ATM ) v Iveco Orecchia SpA ( Case C - 14 / 17 ) 1 ( Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004 / 17 / EC — Article 34 — Supply of spare parts for buses and trolley-buses — Technical specifications — Equivalent products — Whether proof of equivalence may be provided after the contract has been awarded ) Language of the case : Italian Referring court Consiglio di Stato Parties to the main proceedings Appellants : VAR Srl , Azienda Trasporti Milanesi SpA ( ATM ) Respondent : Iveco Orecchia SpA Operative part of the judgment Article 34 ( 8 ) of Directive 2004 / 17 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water , energy , transport and postal services sectors must be interpreted as meaning that , when the technical specifications in the contract documentation refer to a specific mark , origin or production , the contracting authority must require the tenderer to submit , already in its tender , proof that the products which it proposes are equivalent to those defined in the technical specifications . 1 OJ C 168 , 29.5.2017 .
Judgment of the Court ( Third Chamber ) of 11 July 2018 ( request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland ) — Bosphorus Queen Shipping Ltd Corp . v Rajavartiolaitos ( Case C - 15 / 17 ) 1 ( Reference for a preliminary ruling — Montego Bay Convention — Article 220 ( 6 ) — Powers of the coastal State — Jurisdiction of the Court to interpret provisions of international law — Directive 2005 / 35 / EC — Ship-source pollution — Article 7 ( 2 ) — Marpol Convention 73 / 78 — Oil spill in the exclusive economic zone from a foreign vessel in transit — Circumstances in which a coastal State may instigate proceedings against a foreign vessel — Freedom of navigation — Protection of the marine environment — Major damage or threat of major damage to the coastline , related interests or any resources in the territorial sea or exclusive economic zone — Clear objective evidence ) Language of the case : Finnish Referring court Korkein oikeus Parties to the main proceedings Applicant : Bosphorus Queen Shipping Ltd Corp .
Defendant : Rajavartiolaitos Operative part of the judgment Article 220 ( 6 ) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea , signed at Montego Bay on 10 December 1982 , and Article 7 ( 2 ) of Directive 2005 / 35 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties , including criminal penalties , for pollution offences , as amended by Directive 2009 / 123 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 , must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘ clear objective evidence ’ within the meaning of those provisions covers not only the commission of a violation , but also evidence of the consequences of that violation .
The expression ‘ coastline or related interests ’ in Article 220 ( 6 ) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7 ( 2 ) of Directive 2005 / 35 , as amended by Directive 2009 / 123 , must be interpreted as meaning that , in principle , it has the same meaning as the expression ‘ coastline or related interests ’ in Article I ( 1 ) and Article II ( 4 ) of the International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties , concluded at Brussels on 29 November 1969 , it being understood that Article 220 ( 6 ) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea also applied to non-living resources of the territorial sea of the coastal State and to any resources in its exclusive economic zone .
Article 220 ( 6 ) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7 ( 2 ) of Directive 2005 / 35 , as amended by Directive 2009 / 123 , must be interpreted as meaning that the resources of the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone of a coastal State , within the meaning of those provisions , cover both harvested species and also species associated with them and which are dependent on them , such as animal and plant species which feed on the harvested species .
It is unnecessary , in principle , to take account of the concept of ‘ significant pollution ’ referred to in Article 220 ( 5 ) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea when applying Article 220 ( 6 ) of that convention and Article 7 ( 2 ) of Directive 2005 / 35 , as amended by Directive 2009 / 123 , and , in particular , when assessing the consequences of a violation , such as those defined in those provisions .
In order to assess the consequences of a violation , as defined in Article 220 ( 6 ) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7 ( 2 ) of Directive 2005 / 35 , as amended by Directive 2009 / 123 , all the evidence to establish that damage has been caused or that there is a threat of damage to the resources and related interests of the coastal State and to evaluate the extent of the damage caused or threatened to those resources or related interests , taking account inter alia of the cumulative nature of the damage on several or all of those resources and related interests and the difference in sensitivity of the coastal State with regard to damage to its various resources and related interests ; the foreseeable harmful consequences of discharge on those resources and related interests , not only on the basis of the available scientific data , but also with regard to the nature of the harmful substance ( s ) contained in the discharge concerned and the volume , direction , speed and the period of time over which the oil spill spreads The specific geographical and ecological characteristics and sensitivity of the Baltic Sea area have an effect on the conditions of applicability of Article 220 ( 6 ) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7 ( 2 ) of the Directive 2005 / 35 , as amended by Directive 2009 / 123 , as regards the definition and classification of the violation and , although not automatically , on the assessment of the extent of the damage that that violation has caused to the resources and related interests of the coastal State .
Article 1 ( 2 ) of Directive 2005 / 35 , as amended by Directive 2009 / 123 , must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow the Member States to impose more stringent measures in accordance with international law that those laid down in Article 7 ( 2 ) thereof , where international law is applicable , given that the coastal States are authorised to take other measures equivalent in scope to those laid down in Article 220 ( 6 ) . 1 OJ C 86 , 20.3.2017 .
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ( Grand Chamber ) 11 September 2018 ( * ) ( Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000 / 78 / EC — Equal treatment — Occupational activities within churches and other organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief — Occupational requirements — Acting in good faith and with loyalty to the ethos of the church or organisation — Definition — Difference of treatment on the basis of religion or belief — Dismissal of an employee of the Catholic faith performing managerial duties due to a second , civil marriage entered into after a divorce ) In Case C ‑ 68 / 17 , REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Bundesarbeitsgericht ( Federal Labour Court , Germany ) , made by decision of 28 July 2016 , received at the Court on 9 February 2017 , in the proceedings IR JQ THE COURT ( Grand Chamber ) , composed of K .
Lenaerts , President , A .
Tizzano , Vice-President , R .
Silva de Lapuerta , T . von Danwitz , J.L . da Cruz Vilaça , A .
Rosas and J .
Malenovský , Presidents of Chambers , E .
Juhász , M .
Safjan , D .
Šváby , A .
Prechal , F .
Biltgen ( Rapporteur ) , K .
Jürimäe , M .
Vilaras and E .
Regan , Judges , Advocate General : M .
Wathelet , Registrar : K .
Malacek , Administrator , having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 27 February 2018 , after considering the observations submitted on behalf of – IR , by B .
Göpfert , Rechtsanwalt , M .
Ruffert and G .
Thüsing , – the German Government , by T .
Henze , J .
Möller and D .
Klebs , acting as Agents , – the Polish Government , by B .
Majczyna , A .
Siwek and M .
Szwarc , acting as Agents , – the European Commission , by D .
Martin and B .
Killmann , acting as Agents , after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 31 May 2018 , gives the following Judgment 1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 4 ( 2 ) of Council Directive 2000 / 78 / EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation ( OJ 2000 L 303 , p . 16 ) . 2 The request has been made in a dispute between JQ and his employer , IR , in respect of the lawfulness of JQ ’ s dismissal , which was justified by an alleged infringement of the duty of good faith and loyalty to IR ’ s ethos .
Legal context European Union law 3 Recitals 4 , 23 , 24 and 29 of Directive 2000 / 78 state : ‘ ( 4 ) The right of all persons to equality before the law and protection against discrimination constitutes a universal right recognised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women , United Nations Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic , Social and Cultural Rights and by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms , to which all Member States are signatories .
Convention No 111 of the International Labour Organisation ( ILO ) prohibits discrimination in the field of employment and occupation . ( 23 ) In very limited circumstances , a difference of treatment may be justified where a characteristic related to religion or belief , disability , age or sexual orientation constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement , when the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate .
Such circumstances should be included in the information provided by the Member States to the Commission . ( 24 ) The European Union in its Declaration No 11 on the status of churches and non-confessional organisations , annexed to the Final Act of the Amsterdam Treaty , has explicitly recognised that it respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States and that it equally respects the status of philosophical and non-confessional organisations .
With this in view , Member States may maintain or lay down specific provisions on genuine , legitimate and justified occupational requirements which might be required for carrying out an occupational activity . ( 29 ) Persons who have been subject to discrimination based on religion or belief , disability , age or sexual orientation should have adequate means of legal protection .
To provide a more effective level of protection , associations or legal entities should also be empowered to engage in proceedings , as the Member States so determine , either on behalf or in support of any victim , without prejudice to national rules of procedure concerning representation and defence before the courts . ’ 4 Article 1 of that directive provides : ‘ The purpose of this Directive is to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief , disability , age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation , with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment . ’ 5 Article 2 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of that directive states : ‘ 1 .
For the purposes of paragraph 1 : ( a ) direct discrimination shall be taken to occur where one person is treated less favourably than another is , has been or would be treated in a comparable situation , on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 ; 6 Article 4 of that directive is worded as follows : ‘ 1 .
Notwithstanding Article 2 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) , Member States may provide that a difference of treatment which is based on a characteristic related to any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 shall not constitute discrimination where , by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out , such a characteristic constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement , provided that the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate . 2 .
Member States may maintain national legislation in force at the date of adoption of this Directive or provide for future legislation incorporating national practices existing at the date of adoption of this Directive pursuant to which , in the case of occupational activities within churches and other public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief , a difference of treatment based on a person ’ s religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination where , by reason of the nature of these activities or of the context in which they are carried out , a person ’ s religion or belief constitute a genuine , legitimate and justified occupational requirement , having regard to the organisation ’ s ethos .
This difference of treatment shall be implemented taking account of Member States ’ constitutional provisions and principles , as well as the general principles of Community law , and should not justify discrimination on another ground .
Provided that its provisions are otherwise complied with , this Directive shall thus not prejudice the right of churches and other public or private organisations , the ethos of which is based on religion or belief , acting in conformity with national constitutions and laws , to require individuals working for them to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation ’ s ethos . ’ 7 Article 9 ( 1 ) of Directive 2000 / 78 provides : ‘ Member States shall ensure that judicial and / or administrative procedures , including where they deem it appropriate conciliation procedures , for the enforcement of obligations under this Directive are available to all persons who consider themselves wronged by failure to apply the principle of equal treatment to them , even after the relationship in which the discrimination is alleged to have occurred has ended . ’ 8 Article 10 ( 1 ) of that directive states : ‘ Member States shall take such measures as are necessary , in accordance with their national judicial systems , to ensure that , when persons who consider themselves wronged because the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them establish , before a court or other competent authority , facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination , it shall be for the respondent to prove that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment . ’
German law Basic Law 9 Article 4 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of the Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ( Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany ) of 23 May 1949 ( BGBl . 1949 I , p . 1 ; ‘ the GG ’ ) states : ‘ ( 1 ) Freedom of belief and of conscience and freedom to profess a religious or philosophical creed shall be inviolable . ( 2 ) Every person shall have the right to practise his religion without interference . ’ 10 In accordance with Article 140 of the GG , the provisions of Articles 136 to 139 and 141 of the Weimarer Reichsverfasssung ( Weimar Constitution ) of 11 August 1919 ( ‘ the WRV ’ ) are an integral part of the GG . 11 Article 137 of the WRV provides : ‘ ( 1 ) There shall be no State church . ( 2 ) Freedom of association to form religious societies shall be guaranteed .
There shall be no restrictions on the ability of religious societies to form associations within the territory of the State . ( 3 ) Each religious society shall organise and administer its affairs independently within the limits of the law that applies to all persons .
It shall appoint its officers without any interference on the part of the State or the civil municipal authorities . ( 7 ) Associations whose purpose is to foster a philosophical belief in the community shall have the same status as religious societies . ’ 12 According to the case-law of the Bundesverfassungsgericht ( Federal Constitutional Court , Germany ) , the right of self-determination , guaranteed by Article 140 of the GG in conjunction with Article 137 ( 3 ) of the WRV , is enjoyed not only by churches themselves as religious communities , but also by all institutions specifically affiliated to them , if and to the extent that they are required , in accordance with the church ’ s faith-defined self-perception and with their own purpose or mission , to undertake and fulfil the church ’ s mandate and mission .
Law on Protection against Dismissal 13 Paragraph 1 of the Kündigungsschutzgesetz ( Law on Protection against Dismissal ) of 25 August 1969 ( BGBl . 1969 I , p . 1317 ) , in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings , provides : ‘ Socially unjustified dismissals ( 1 ) The dismissal of an employee whose employment relationship has continued for more than six months without interruption with the same business or undertaking shall be void where it is socially unjustified . ( 2 ) A dismissal is socially unjustified when it is not based on reasons relating to the person or conduct of the employee , or is due to urgent operational requirements that preclude the employee ’ s continued employment with the business .
General Law on Equal Treatment 14 The Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz ( General Law on Equal Treatment ) of 14 August 2006 ( BGBl . 2006 I , p . 1897 ; ‘ the AGG ’ ) transposed Directive 2000 / 78 into German law . 15 Paragraph 1 of the AGG , which sets out the objective of the law , states : ‘ The objective of this law is to prevent or eliminate discrimination on grounds of race , ethnic origin , sex , religion or belief , disability , age or sexual identity . ’ 16 Paragraph 7 ( 1 ) of the AGG provides : ‘ Workers shall not be discriminated against on any of the grounds mentioned in Paragraph 1 ; this also applies where the person responsible for the discrimination merely assumes in the course of the discriminatory conduct that one of the grounds mentioned in Paragraph 1 exists . ’ 17 Under Paragraph 9 of the AGG : ‘ ( 1 ) Without prejudice to Paragraph 8 [ of this law ] , a difference of treatment on grounds of religion or belief in connection with employment by religious communities , institutions affiliated to them , regardless of their legal form , or associations that devote themselves to the communal nurture of a religion or belief shall also be permitted if a particular religion or belief constitutes a justified occupational requirement , having regard to the self-perception of the religious society or association concerned , in view of its right of self-determination , or the nature of the activities engaged in . ( 2 ) The prohibition of a difference of treatment on grounds of religion or belief shall not affect the right of the religious communities mentioned in subparagraph 1 , institutions affiliated to them , regardless of their legal form , or associations that devote themselves to the communal nurture of a religion or belief , to require their employees to act in good faith and with loyalty in accordance with their self-perception . ’
Canon law 18 According to Canon 1085 of the Codex Iuris Canonici ( Code of Canon Law ) : ‘ ( 1 ) Marriage by a person bound by the bond of a prior marriage , even if not consummated , is invalid . ( 2 ) Even if the prior marriage is invalid or dissolved for whatever reason , the person concerned shall not on that account be permitted to contract another marriage before the nullity or dissolution of the prior marriage is established lawfully and definitively . ’ 19 Article 1 of the Grundordnung des kirchlichen Dienstes im Rahmen kirchlicher Arbeitsverhältnisse ( Basic regulations on employment relationships in the service of the Church ) of 22 September 1993 ( Amtsblatt des Erzbistums Köln 1993 , p . 222 ; ‘ the GrO 1993 ’ ) states as follows : ‘ Basic principles of service in the Church All persons working in an institution of the Catholic Church shall work together , irrespective of their employment status , to ensure that the institution can play its part in the mission of the Church ( community of service ) . 20 Article 4 of the GrO 1993 , headed ‘ Duty of loyalty ’ , reads as follows : ‘ ( 1 ) Catholic employees are expected to recognise and observe the principles of Catholic doctrinal and moral teaching .
In pastoral , catechetical and educational work in particular , as well as among employees who are working on the basis of a missio canonica [ canonical mission ] , employees shall conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the principles of Catholic doctrinal and moral teaching .
This also applies to employees performing managerial duties . ( 2 ) Non-Catholic Christian employees shall be expected to respect the truths and values of the Gospel and to contribute to giving them effect within the organisation . ( 4 ) All employees shall refrain from acting in a manner that is contrary to the Church .
They must not , by their personal life and their conduct at work , undermine the credibility of the Church and the institution by which they are employed . ’ 21 Article 5 of the GrO 1993 , headed ‘ Breaches of the duty of loyalty ’ , states : ‘ ( 1 ) If an employee no longer complies with the requirements for employment , the employer shall attempt to counsel the employee to remedy this shortcoming on a lasting basis .
Dismissal shall be considered as a last resort . ( 2 ) For dismissal on grounds relating specifically to the Church , the following breaches of the duty of loyalty in particular shall be regarded by the Church as serious : – entering into a marriage that is invalid according to the Church ’ s teachings and its legal system , ( 3 ) In the case of [ employees ] occupying managerial posts , conduct generally considered to be a possible ground for dismissal in accordance with paragraph 2 shall rule out any possibility of continued employment .
In exceptional cases , dismissal may be avoided if there are serious reasons in the individual case indicating that such dismissal would be excessive . ’ 22 The Grundordnung für katholische Krankenhäuser in Nordrhein-Westfalen ( Basic regulations for Catholic hospitals in North Rhine-Westphalia , Germany ) of 5 November 1996 ( Amtsblatt des Erzbistums Köln , p . 321 ) states as follows : ‘ A .
Assignment to the church ( 6 ) The [ GrO 1993 ] , adopted on the basis of the statement issued by the German bishops on service in the Church , as amended and supplemented , shall be binding on the body responsible .
Employees occupying managerial posts within the meaning of the abovementioned basic regulations include members of hospital management and heads of department . ’
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling 23 IR is a limited liability company established under German law .
Its purpose is to carry out the work of Caritas ( the international confederation of Catholic charitable organisations ) , as an expression of the life and nature of the Roman Catholic Church , through , among other things , the operation of hospitals .
IR is primarily a non-profit organisation and is subject to the supervision of the Archbishop of Cologne ( Germany ) . 24 JQ is of the Roman Catholic faith .
He trained as a doctor and began working in 2000 as Head of the Internal Medicine Department of an IR hospital pursuant to an employment contract concluded on the basis of the GrO 1993 . 25 JQ was married in accordance with the Roman Catholic rite .
His first wife separated from him in 2005 , and their divorce was granted in March 2008 .