ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
26.

The first question is whether, by using the words ‘in particular’ (... shall classify in particular the most suitable territories... as special protection areas...), the last subparagraph of Article 4(1) also envisages a classification other than classification as P As, as presumed by the French Government. In Commission v Netherlands, cited above, the Court of Justice stated as follows, in paragraphs 55 to 58: ‘It must first be observed that, contrary to the contention of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Article 4(1) of the Directive requires Member States to classify as SP As the most suitable territories in number and size for the conservation of the species mentioned in Annex I, an obligation which it is not possible to avoid by adopting other special conservation methods. It follows from that provision, as interpreted by the Court, that if such species occur on the territory of a Member State, it is obliged to define inter alia SPAs for them (see Case C-334/89 Commission v Italy [1991] ECR I-93, paragraph 10). Such an interpretation of the obligation to classify SPAs is moreover consistent with the system of specifically targeted and reinforced protection laid down by Article 4 of the Directive in respect in particular of the species listed in Annex I (see Case C-44/95 R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Royal Society for the Protection of Birds [1996] ECR I-3805, paragraph 23), a fortiori since even Article 3 provides, for all the species of irds covered by the Directive, that the preservation, maintenance and reestablishment of biotopes and habitats is to include primarily measures such as the creation of protected areas. Besides, as the Advocate General points out in point 33 of his Opinion, if Member States could escape the obligation to classify SPAs if they considered that other special conservation measures were sufficient to ensure survival and reproduction of the species mentioned in Annex I, the objective of creating a coherent network of SPAs, referred to in Article 4(3) of the Directive, might not be achieved.’
((Equal treatment for men and women – Working conditions – Directive 76/207/EEC – Return to work by a pregnant employee before the expiry of her parental leave))
((Articles 28 and 30 EC – Common organisation of the market – National legislation which prohibits the cultivation or other processing of industrial hemp, a product permitted under Community regulations))
((Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations – Council Directive 98/56/EC of 20 July 1998 on the marketing of propagating material of ornamental plants – Difficulties of interpretation))
((Failure to fulfil obligations – Improvement of health and safety protection of workers at work – Council Directive 89/391/EEC – Workers' representatives with specific responsibility for health and safety protection of workers – Election – Procedural law))
((Free movement of capital – Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) – Prior authorisation procedure for the acquisition of building plots – Purely internal situation – Restrictions – Public interest criterion – Absence of proportionality – Interpretation of the EEA Agreement with regard to a period prior to accession – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
((Appeal – Community law – General principles – Principle authorising set-off between a debt owed to the Commission and sums payable by way of Community contributions – Existence – Conditions of application))
((Failure to fulfil obligations – Free movement of goods – Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – Prohibition on the marketing of energy drinks containing caffeine in excess of a certain limit – Public health – Retention of a national provision incompatible with Community law))
((Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs – Taking of samples – Analysis – Right to apply for a second opinion – Consequence of not being able to apply for a second opinion))
((Common Agricultural Policy – Fees for health inspections and controls of fresh meat – Directive 85/73/EEC – Reduction of the fee payable for controls and inspections connected with cutting operations – Conditions of entitlement – Criteria applicable for the calculation of this reduction – Ownership of the slaughterhouse and the cutting plant – Lack of relevance))
((Geographical indications – Agreements concluded between a Member State and a non-member country – Succession of States in respect of treaties – Agreements concluded prior to accession – Free movement of goods – Protection of intellectual property))
((Appeal against a judgment of the Court of First Instance – Parallel imports of medicinal products – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – Concept of agreement – Proof of the existence of an agreement))
((Trade marks – Approximation of laws – Directive 89/104/EEC – Article 2 – Signs of which a trade mark may consist – Sounds – Signs capable of being represented graphically))
(Social policy – Equal treatment for men and women – Maternity leave – Worker whose period of maternity leave coincides with her workshop's annual closure, which has been fixed in a collective agreement concerning annual leave)
(Failure to fulfil obligations – Directive 85/337/EEC – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Project for Valencia-Tarragona railway line – Failure to carry out an environmental impact assessment)
((Action against the Commission for failure to act – Appeal – Competition – Complaint – Concentration between undertakings in the media sector in Austria))
((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 92/43/EEC – Failure to implement within the prescribed period))
((Brussels Convention – Article 21 – Lis pendens – Proceedings having the same object and the same cause of action – Article 17 – Agreement conferring jurisdiction – Obligation to decline jurisdiction incumbent on a court second seised which is designated in an agreement conferring jurisdiction – No obligation – Conditions – Excessive duration of proceedings before the courts of the State in which the court first seised is established – Irrelevant criterion))
((Directive 90/496/EEC – Nutrition labelling for foodstuffs – Vitamin content – Declared value – Average value – Reference date – Permissible differences between the declared values and those established in the course of official checks – Proportionality))
(Appeal – Non-contractual liability – European Ombudsman’s manner of dealing with a complaint concerning an internal competition)
(Interpretation of Article 1(1) and (2) of Council Directive 83/183/EEC on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals – Car tax (‘Autovero’) – Consumption tax or specific tax for the use of a motor vehicle – Registration tax – Double taxation)
(Public works contracts – Directive 93/37/EEC – Procedure for the award of contracts – Negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice – Calculation of the time-limit of three years from the conclusion of a first contract – Absence of an excusable error of law)
(Free movement of capital – Income tax – Tax credit for dividends paid by domestic companies – Justification on grounds of cohesion of the tax system)
(Freedom of establishment – Credit institutions – National legislation prohibiting the remuneration of ‘sight’ accounts – Possible incompatibility with Community law)
(Directive 96/9/EC – Databases – Protection – Sui generis right – Beneficiaries – Obtaining and verification of the contents of a database – (In)substantial part of the contents of a database – Extraction and re-utilisation – Normal exploitation – Unreasonable prejudice to the legitimate interests of the maker – Significant change to the contents of a database – Sport – Betting)
(Brussels Convention – Where and to whom applicable – Accident occurring in a non-Contracting State – Physical injury – Action brought in a Contracting State against a person domiciled in that State and other defendants domiciled in the non-Contracting State where the accident occurred – Doctrine of forum non conveniens in relations between a Contracting State and a non-Contracting State – Incompatibility with the Brussels Convention)
(Free movement of capital – Income tax – Deductibility of expenditure on the purchase of shares – Restriction to shares in resident companies)
(Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Classification in the Combined Nomenclature of digital recording apparatus developed for video monitoring purposes – Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature)
(Sixth VAT Directive – Chargeable event – Transactions regarded as supplies of goods and services for consideration – Provision of meals for its staff, at a price lower than cost price, by an undertaking operating in the hotel and restaurant sector – Interpretation of Articles 2, 5(6) and 6(2)(b))
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Articles 17(2)(a) and 18(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC – National provision under which an employer is allowed to deduct input tax in relation to his reimbursements of his employees’ road fuel costs)
(Transfers of undertakings – Privatisation – Date of the transfer – Employees' rights – Transferor's rights and obligations arising from an employment contract existing on the date of the transfer)
B – The second question referred to the Court relating to the prohibition of discrimination under Article 7(5) of Directive 96/92
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – VAT – Excise duties – Directive 77/799/EEC – Partial transposition for the territory of Gibraltar – Legality)
7.

Advertising of casinos is governed by Paragraph 56 of the GSpG. The current version of that article is the result of an amendment to the GSpG carried out by the Law of 26 August 2008 (BGB1 I No 126/2008). That amendment was adopted following an infringement procedure opened by the European Commission ( 2 ) concerning the previous version of Article 56 of the GSpG which prohibited the advertising of casinos located outside of Austria. The current version of Article 56 of the GSpG states the following: ‘(1) Licensees and permit holders under this Federal Law shall maintain a responsible attitude in their promotional activities. Compliance with this requirement for a responsible attitude shall be ensured exclusively through supervision by the Federal Minister for Finance and shall not be amenable to enforcement by actions brought under Paragraph 1 et seq. of the Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (Federal law against unfair competition). The first sentence of the present subparagraph shall not constitute a protective law for the purposes of Paragraph 1311 of the Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Austrian Civil Code). (2) Casinos from Member States of the European Union or European Economic Area States may promote in Austria visits to their establishments located outside Austria in Member States of the European Union or of the European Economic Area in accordance with the principles established in subparagraph 1 if the casino operator has been granted a permit to that effect by the Federal Minister for Finance. Such a permit shall be granted where the casino operator demonstrates to the Federal Minister for Finance that: 1. the licence to operate the casino conforms to the requirements of Paragraph 21 and the casino operates under that licence in the State granting it, that State being a Member State of the European Union or of the European Economic Area, and 2. the legal provisions for the protection of gamblers adopted by that Member State at least correspond to the Austrian provisions. If the promotional measures do not satisfy the requirements of subparagraph 1, the Federal Minister of Finance may prohibit advertising by the operator of the casino located outside Austria.’
49.

Moreover, the fact that Ms Prete is married to a Belgian national introduces an additional element, which the Commission was right to emphasise. A national measure which denies access to the tideover allowance to persons residing lawfully in Belgium who have married a national of that country constitutes a measure which fails to take into consideration the family situation of the job seeker. Such circumstances are evidence of the connections that may have been established in the host State and, although, in some cases, they are confined, for example, to the existence of a mere personal connection, in others, they may, if due account is not taken of them, constitute a fact entailing an infringement of the fundamental right to a private life, which right the Court has recognised specifically in the context of the freedom of movement for persons. ( 30 ) It is clear that the condition at issue in these proceedings allows neither the Belgian authorities nor the Belgian courts to take that circumstance into consideration. Consequently, in so far as it makes it impossible to take into account personal circumstances such as those referred to above, I take the view that the measure provided for in point 2(j) of Article 36(1) of the Royal Decree of 25 November 1991 is contrary to the principle of proportionality and, therefore, does not justify a restriction on the freedom of movement for workers.
63.

According to the first theory, supported by Krones AG, Gothaer and Others, and the German Government, the effect of recognition of the judgment is exclusively negative, in that it extends solely to the finding that the court first seised has no international jurisdiction. Krones AG submits that observance of the negative effect of the decision declining jurisdiction must be understood as an autonomous binding effect which is exhausted in the finding that the court first seised lacks jurisdiction. Any further considerations are not binding on the courts of the other Member States, since neither Regulation No 44/2001 nor the Lugano Convention allows the court seised to rule on the jurisdiction of the courts of the other Member States or contracting States. According to Krones AG, there cannot be any restriction of the German court’s free assessment of its own jurisdiction under Article 26(1) of Regulation No 44/2001. Furthermore, the grounds for refusal of recognition set out in Articles 34 and 35 of that regulation do not apply to judgments on jurisdiction. Gothaer and Others argue similarly, on the basis that the regulation does not contain a mechanism for one court to give binding instructions to another, and that the system of Chapter III of the regulation shows that each Member State always decides itself whether its courts have jurisdiction. As to the German Government, it submits that it is for each court seised to assess, in accordance with the law applicable in its territory, the validity of the term conferring jurisdiction on the court of a third State. Moreover, in its view, the law of the Member State of origin determines the upper limit of the extent of the effect of recognition, and a judgment from another Member State cannot produce more extensive effects in the Member State addressed than those of a comparable judgment delivered in that State.
37.

If the Court rejects its principal argument, the Council maintains, in the alternative, that the act of the President of the Parliament should be annulled on the ground of infringement of essential procedural requirements. In particular, the Council takes the view that, from the point at which he became fully aware of the disagreement between the Parliament and the Council regarding the type of act required for the adoption of the budget and the signing of the act, the President of the Parliament was not entitled to declare that the budgetary procedure for the financial year 2011 had been completed. The Council observes that the President of the Parliament did not inform the plenary session of his institution either of the Council’s position, as set out in his letter of 12 November 2010, or of the final attempt by the President of the Council, on the very day on which the Parliament voted on the draft budget, to propose a solution to the dispute. Since the Council’s position on the draft budget included a draft decision for the adoption of the budget by the two institutions, the Council claims that the President of the Parliament adopted the act in question at a time when, in the absence of any agreement between the two institutions as to the type of act required for the adoption of the budget and the signing of the act, the budgetary procedure had not yet been completed. For that reason, the act of the President of the Parliament is unlawful.
12.

Paragraph 3 of the Federal Law on Unfair Competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb) provides: ‘Paragraph 3: Prohibition of unfair commercial practices (1) Unfair commercial practices shall be unlawful if they are likely to have a perceptible adverse effect on the interests of competitors, consumers or other market participants. (2) Commercial practices in relation to consumers shall in any case be unlawful if they are not in keeping with the due care to be expected of the trader and are likely to have a perceptible adverse effect on the consumer’s ability to take an informed decision and thereby to cause him to take a transactional decision which he would not otherwise have taken. In that connection regard must be had to the average consumer or, if the commercial practice is directed at a particular group of consumers, an average member of that group. … (3) The commercial practices directed at consumers which are listed in the annex to the present law shall always be regarded as unlawful.’ Pursuant to Paragraph 4(3) and (11) of the Federal Law on unfair competition, ‘[u]nfairness shall have occurred in particular where a person … conceals the advertising nature of commercial practices [or] … infringes a statutory provision that is also intended to regulate market behaviour in the interest of market participants.’
8.

Under Article 28 of that regulation, which is devoted to transitional measures: ‘1. Foods placed on the market or labelled prior to the date of application of this Regulation which do not comply with this Regulation may be marketed until their expiry date, but not later than 31 July 2009. With regard to the provisions in Article 4(1), foods may be marketed until twenty-four months following adoption of the relevant nutrient profiles and their conditions of use. 2. Products bearing trade marks or brand names existing before 1 January 2005 which do not comply with this Regulation may continue to be marketed until 19 January 2022 after which time the provisions of this Regulation shall apply. 3. Nutrition claims which have been used in a Member State before 1 January 2006 in compliance with national provisions applicable to them and which are not included in the Annex, may continue to be used until 19 January 2010 under the responsibility of food business operators and without prejudice to the adoption of safeguard measures as referred to in Article 24. 4. Nutrition claims in the form of pictorial, graphic or symbolic representation, complying with the general principles of this Regulation, which are not included in the Annex and are used according to specific conditions and criteria elaborated by national provisions or rules, shall be subject to the following: (a) Member States shall communicate to the Commission, by 31 January 2008 at the latest, such nutrition claims and the national provisions or rules applicable, accompanied by scientific data in support of such provisions or rules; (b) the Commission shall, in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 25(3), adopt a decision concerning the use of such claims and designed to amend non-essential elements of this Regulation. Nutrition claims not authorised under this procedure may continue to be used for twelve months following the adoption of the Decision. 5. Health claims as referred to in Article 13(1)(a) may be made from the date of entry into force of this Regulation until the adoption of the list referred to in Article 13(3), under the responsibility of food business operators provided that they comply with this Regulation and with existing national provisions applicable to them, and without prejudice to the adoption of safeguard measures as referred to in Article 24. …’
7.

Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive define the protection of sites in more specific terms: ‘2. Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive. 3. Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public. 4. If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted. …’
4.

Article 22 of Regulation No 1408/71, entitled ’Stay outside the competent State — Return to or transfer of residence to another Member State during sickness or maternity — Need to go to another Member State in order to receive appropriate treatment’, provides: ‘1. An employed or self-employed person who satisfies the conditions of the legislation of the competent State for entitlement to benefits, taking account where appropriate of the provisions of Article 18, and: … (c) who is authorised by the competent institution to go to the territory of another Member State to receive there the treatment appropriate to his condition, shall be entitled: (i) to benefits in kind provided on behalf of the competent institution by the institution of the place of stay …, in accordance with the provisions of the legislation which it administers, as though he were insured with it; the length of the period during which benefits are provided shall be governed, however, by the legislation of the competent State; … 2. … The authorisation required under paragraph 1(c) may not be refused where the treatment in question is among the benefits provided for by the legislation of the Member State on whose territory the person concerned resided and where he cannot be given such treatment within the time normally necessary for obtaining the treatment in question in the Member State of residence taking account of his current state of health and the probable course of the disease.’