ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3

Recitals 5, 6, 7 and 10 in the preamble to Framework Decision 2002/584 state: ‘(5) The objective set for the Union to become an area of freedom, security and justice leads to abolishing extradition between Member States and replacing it by a system of surrender between judicial authorities. Further, the introduction of a new simplified system of surrender of sentenced or suspected persons for the purposes of execution or prosecution of criminal sentences makes it possible to remove the complexity and potential for delay inherent in the present extradition procedures. Traditional cooperation relations which have prevailed up till now between Member States should be replaced by a system of free movement of judicial decisions in criminal matters, covering both pre-sentence and final decisions, within an area of freedom, security and justice. (6) The European arrest warrant provided for in this Framework Decision is the first concrete measure in the field of criminal law implementing the principle of mutual recognition which the European Council referred to as the “cornerstone” of judicial cooperation. (7) Since the aim of replacing the system of multilateral extradition built upon the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting unilaterally and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Council may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as referred to in Article 2 [EU] and Article 5 [EC]. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in the latter Article, this Framework Decision does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective. ... (10) The mechanism of the European arrest warrant is based on a high level of confidence between Member States. Its implementation may be suspended only in the event of a serious and persistent breach by one of the Member States of the principles set out in Article 6(1) [EU], determined by the Council pursuant to Article 7(1) of the said Treaty with the consequences set out in Article 7(2) thereof.’
4

Article 2a of that directive lays down a standstill period of 10 days after adoption of the contract award decision, or 15 days if it is sent other than by fax or electronic means, during which the contract covered by that decision may not be concluded (‘the 10-day standstill period’). That article provides: ‘1. The Member States shall ensure that the [persons involved in a contract] have sufficient time for effective review of the contract award decisions taken by contracting authorities, by adopting the necessary provisions respecting the minimum conditions set out in paragraph 2 of this Article and in Article 2c. 2. A contract may not be concluded following the decision to award a contract falling within the scope of 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)] before the expiry of a period of at least 10 calendar days with effect from the day following the date on which the contract award decision is sent to the tenderers and candidates concerned if fax or electronic means are used or, if other means of communication are used, before the expiry of a period of either at least 15 calendar days with effect from the day following the date on which the contract award decision is sent to the tenderers and candidates concerned or at least 10 calendar days with effect from the day following the date of the receipt of the contract award decision. Tenderers shall be deemed to be concerned if they have not yet been definitively excluded. An exclusion is definitive if it has been notified to the tenderers concerned and has either been considered lawful by an independent review body or can no longer be subject to a review procedure. Candidates shall be deemed to be concerned if the contracting authority has not made available information about the rejection of their application before the notification of the contract award decision to the tenderers concerned. The communication of the award decision to each tenderer and candidate concerned shall be accompanied by the following: – a summary of the relevant reasons as set out in Article 41(2) of [Directive 2004/18], subject to the provisions of Article 41(3) of that directive, and, – a precise statement of the exact standstill period applicable pursuant to the provisions of national law transposing this paragraph.’
6

Article 9 of that same directive, entitled ‘Methods for calculating the estimated value of public contracts, framework agreements and dynamic purchasing systems’, provides: ‘… 5. … (b) Where a proposal for the acquisition of similar supplies may result in contracts being awarded at the same time in the form of separate lots, account shall be taken of the total estimated value of all such lots when applying Article 7(a) and (b). Where the aggregate value of the lots is equal to or exceeds the threshold laid down in Article 7, this Directive shall apply to the awarding of each lot. However, the contracting authorities may waive such application in respect of lots, the estimated value of which, net of VAT, is less than EUR 80000, provided that the aggregate cost of those lots does not exceed 20% of the aggregate value of the lots as a whole. … 7. In the case of public supply or service contracts which are regular in nature or which are intended to be renewed within a given period, the calculation of the estimated contract value shall be based on the following: (a) either the total actual value of the successive contracts of the same type awarded during the preceding 12 months or financial year adjusted, if possible, to take account of the changes in quantity or value which would occur in the course of the 12 months following the initial contract; (b) or the total estimated value of the successive contracts awarded during the 12 months following the first delivery, or during the financial year if that is longer than 12 months. The choice of method used to calculate the estimated value of a public contract may not be made with the intention of excluding it from the scope of this Directive. …’
Clause 5(1) of the of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which the renewal of successive fixed-term employment contracts, in the public sector, is deemed justified by ‘objective reasons’ within the meaning of that clause on the sole ground that inspections performed by staff employed in the veterinary health sector are non-permanent in nature due to the variations in volume of the activities of the establishments to be inspected, unless the renewal of those contracts is actually aimed at covering a specific need in the relevant sector, without the underlying reason being budgetary considerations, which it is for the national court to verify. Moreover, the fact that the renewal of successive fixed-term contracts is done pending completion of competition procedures does not make those rules compliant with that clause where the actual application thereof leads, in reality, to abusive recourse to successive fixed-term employment contracts, which it is also for the national court to verify.
15

In those circumstances, the Bezirksgericht Linz (District Court, Linz, Austria) decided to stay proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Article 18 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has laid down a provision in its legal system, such as Article 16(2) of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, which prohibits the extradition of German citizens to non-Member States, the provision also applies to citizens of other Member States residing in the Member State at issue? (2) Are Articles 19(2) and 47 of [the Charter] to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State of the European Union must reject an application for extradition emanating from a non-Member State concerning an EU citizen residing in that Member State where the criminal proceedings from which the application for extradition arose and the decision rendered in absentia in the non-Member State did not respect the minimum standard of international law and the non-mandatory principles of the public order of the European Union (ordre public) or the right to a fair trial? (3) Lastly, is Article 50 of [the Charter] or the principle ne bis in idem secured in the case-law of the Court of Justice to be interpreted as precluding further prosecution by a non-Member State in the case of a first conviction in the non-Member State followed by the discontinuing of proceedings in a Member State of the European Union for lack of real grounds justifying prosecution? (4) In the event that one of the first three questions is answered in the affirmative, is, inter alia, Article 6 of [the Charter] (“right to liberty”) to be interpreted as meaning that an EU citizen may not be held in custody for extradition where a non-Member State makes such an application for extradition?’
Appeal—Grounds—Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court—Error of law relied on not identified—Ground lacking precision—Inadmissibility

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para,; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))

(see paras 33-39)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 June 2016 —

Copernicus-Trademarks v EUIPO

(Case C‑43/16 P)

‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — EU trade mark — Word mark LUCEA LED — Opposition by the proprietor of the word mark LUCEO — Rejection of the opposition — Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Article 56 — Rules of Procedure — Article 186 — Application for legal aid — Suspensive effect on the time limit for bringing an appeal — Appeal manifestly inadmissible’

Appeal — Time limits — Application for legal aid — Suspensive effect on the time limit for bringing an appeal — Delay — Manifest inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 55(7) and 186) (see paras 3, 4)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
3.

Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 5, 6)
2.

Application for interim measures — Admissibility criteria — Application — Formal requirements — Pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for — Pleas in law not set out in the application — Reference to the application at the appeal stage — Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 160(3) (see paras 17-20)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law—Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure

(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99)

(see paras 14,15)
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — Bachman

(Case C‑535/16) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 2(b) — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Notion of ‘consumer’ — Natural person having concluded an agreement for novation with a credit institution in order to meet repayment obligations to that institution in respect of credit obtained by a commercial company)

Consumer protection—Unfair terms in consumer contracts—Directive 93/13—Concept of consumer—Natural person having concluded an agreement for novation with a credit institution in order to meet repayment obligations to that institution in respect of credit obtained by a commercial company—Included—Conditions

(Council Directive 93/13, Recital 10e and Art. 2(b))

(see paras 32-38, 41, operative part)

Operative part

Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who, following a novation agreement, has undertaken by contract to repay to a lending institution loans originally granted to a company for purposes inherent in that company’s business activity, where that natural person has no evident link with that company but acted in that way on the basis of his links, outside his trade, business or profession, with the person who controlled that company and also with the person who signed contracts ancillary to the original loan contracts (contracts of guarantee, contracts providing immovable property as security/mortgages).

( 1 ) OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
Case C‑497/16

Criminal proceedings

against

Juraj Sokáč

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Drug precursors — Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 — Article 2(a) — Definition of ‘scheduled substance’ — Exclusion of medicinal products — Directive 2001/83/EC — Article 1(2) — Definition of ‘medicinal product’ — Medicinal product containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine — Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 — Article 2(a) — Definition of ‘scheduled substance’ — Annex — Inclusion of medicinal products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine — No effect on the scope of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004)

Summary — Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 2 March 2017

Approximation of laws — Monitoring of trade in drug precursors — Regulations No 273/2004 and No 111/2005 — Scope — Scheduled substances — Definition — Medicinal products within the meaning of Directive 2001/83 — Not included

(European Parliament and Council Regulations No 273/2004, as amended by Regulation No 1258/2013, Art. 2(a) and No 1259/2013; European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, Art. 1(2))

‘Medicinal products’, within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, which contain ‘scheduled substances’, within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1258/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013, such as ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, remain excluded from the scope of Regulation No 273/2004 following the entry into force of Regulation No 1258/2013 and Regulation (EU) No 1259/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Union and third countries in drug precursors.

(see para. 35, operative part)
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 October 2017 —

Hitachi Rail Italy Investments and Finmeccanica

(Joined Cases C‑655/16 and C‑656/16) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Company law — Directive 2004/25/EC — Takeover bids — Second subparagraph of Article 5(4) — Possibility of changing the price of the bid in specific circumstances and in line with clearly determined criteria — National legislation providing an option for the supervisory authority to increase a takeover bid in the event of collusion between the offeror and the seller)

Freedom of establishment—Companies—Directive 2004/25—Takeover bids—Protection of minority shareholders, the mandatory bid and the equitable price—Whether possible for the Member States to authorise their supervisory authorities to adjust the price of the bid in specific circumstances and in line with clearly determined criteria—National law which allows the price of a takeover bid to be increased in the event of collusion between the offeror or the persons acting together with it and one or more sellers—Lack of detailed information regarding the specific conduct characterising the concept of collusion—Lawfulness—Condition—Concept which can be deduced from the regulation in a sufficiently clear, precise and foreseeable manner

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/25, Art. 5(4), second para.)

(see para. 23, operative part)

Operative part

The second subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a national supervisory authority to adjust upwards the price of a takeover bid in the event of ‘collusion’, without setting out the specific conduct that characterises that notion, on condition that the interpretation of that notion can be deduced in a sufficiently clear, precise and foreseeable manner from that legislation, using methods of interpretation recognised by national law.

( 1 ) OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 February 2017 —

Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission

(Case C‑446/16 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs — Traditional specialities guaranteed — Notice of opposition lodged out of time by the competent national authorities — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

Appeal—Grounds—Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal—Inadmissibility

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 14)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

( 1 ) OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2019 — Bankia

(Case C‑486/16) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Articles 6 and 7 — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Accelerated repayment term in a mortgage loan agreement — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Question identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled or where the reply to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law — Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ — Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law — Principle of effectiveness — Principle of procedural autonomy)

1. EU law — Direct effect — National rules of procedure — Conditions under which applicable — Respect for the principles of equivalence and effectiveness (see paras 37, 39)

2. Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13 — Mortgage enforcement proceedings — Decision of a national court of second instance, ordering the initiation of an enforcement procedure for failure to meet obligations under a mortgage loan agreement, binding on a national court of first instance — Contract containing a term declared unfair in an earlier final judgment which does not have the force of res judicata — Lawfulness — Compliance with the principle of effectiveness (Council Directive 93/13, Art. 7(1)) (see paras 44-50, operative part)

Operative part

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the principle of effectiveness must be interpreted, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, as not precluding that a national court of first instance may be bound by a decision delivered by an appeal court requiring the initiation of an enforcement procedure taking into account the seriousness of the consumer’s failure to fulfil his obligations under the mortgage loan agreement, even if that agreement contains a term declared unfair in an earlier judgment which has become final, but which does not have the force of res judicata under national law.

( 1 ) OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
2

Article 36 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 2012 L 112, p. 21) (‘the Act of Accession’), annexed to the Treaty between the Member States of the European Union and the Republic of Croatia concerning the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (OJ 2012 L 112, p. 10) (‘the Accession Treaty’), states: ‘1. The Commission shall closely monitor all commitments undertaken by Croatia in the accession negotiations, including those which must be achieved before or by the date of accession. The Commission’s monitoring shall consist of regularly updated monitoring tables, dialogue under the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part …, peer assessment missions, the pre-accession economic programme, fiscal notifications and, when necessary, early warning letters to the Croatian authorities. In the autumn of 2011, the Commission shall present a Progress Report to the European Parliament and the Council. In the autumn of 2012, it shall present a Comprehensive Monitoring Report to the European Parliament and the Council. Throughout the monitoring process, the Commission shall also draw on input from Member States and take into consideration input from international and civil society organisations as appropriate. The Commission’s monitoring shall focus in particular on commitments undertaken by Croatia in the area of the judiciary and fundamental rights (Annex VII), including the continued development of track records on judicial reform and efficiency, impartial handling of war crimes cases, and the fight against corruption. … As an integral part of its regular monitoring tables and reports, the Commission shall issue six-monthly assessments up to the accession of Croatia on the commitments undertaken by Croatia in these areas. 2. The Council, acting by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may take all appropriate measures if issues of concern are identified during the monitoring process …’