ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
4

The 1st, 16th and 18th recitals in the preamble to Directive 94/19 stated: ‘Whereas, in accordance with the objectives of the Treaty, the harmonious development of the activities of credit institutions throughout the Community should be promoted through the elimination of all restrictions on the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services, while increasing the stability of the banking system and protection for savers; … Whereas, on the one hand, the minimum guarantee level prescribed in this Directive should not leave too great a proportion of deposits without protection in the interest both of consumer protection and of the stability of the financial system; whereas, on the other hand, it would not be appropriate to impose throughout the Community a level of protection which might in certain cases have the effect of encouraging the unsound management of credit institutions; whereas the cost of funding schemes should be taken into account; whereas it would appear reasonable to set the harmonised minimum guarantee level at [EUR] 20000; whereas limited transitional arrangements might be necessary to enable schemes to comply with that figure; … Whereas a Member State must be able to exclude certain categories of specifically listed deposits or depositors, if it does not consider that they need special protection, from the guarantee afforded by deposit-guarantee schemes; …’
12

Article 5 of the Access Directive, entitled ‘Powers and responsibilities of the [NRAs] with regard to access and interconnection’, reads as follows: ‘1. [NRAs] shall, acting in pursuit of the objectives set out in Article 8 of [the Framework Directive], encourage and where appropriate ensure, in accordance with the provisions of this Directive, adequate access and interconnection, and the interoperability of services, exercising their responsibility in a way that promotes efficiency, sustainable competition, efficient investment and innovation, and gives the maximum benefit to end-users. In particular, without prejudice to measures that may be taken regarding undertakings with significant market power in accordance with Article 8, [NRAs] shall be able to impose: (a) to the extent that is necessary to ensure end-to-end connectivity, obligations on undertakings that control access to end-users, including in justified cases the obligation to interconnect their networks where this is not already the case; (ab) in justified cases and to the extent that is necessary, obligations on undertakings that control access to end-users to make their services interoperable; ... 2. Obligations and conditions imposed in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be objective, transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory, and shall be implemented in accordance with the procedures referred to in Articles 6, 7 and 7a of [the Framework Directive]. 3. With regard to access and interconnection referred to in paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that the [NRA] is empowered to intervene at its own initiative where justified in order to secure the policy objectives of Article 8 of [the Framework Directive], in accordance with the provisions of this Directive and the procedures referred to in Articles 6 and 7, 20 and 21 of [the Framework Directive].’
83

In view of all the foregoing, the answer to the second and third questions is that point (i) of the first paragraph of Annex IIB(2) to Directive 1999/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a time extension for the implementation of a reduction scheme requires an authorisation from the competent authorities, which presupposes a prior application from the operator concerned. When determining whether a time extension must be given to an operator for the implementation of a reduction scheme and fixing the duration of the time extension which may be given, it is for those competent authorities, within the discretion available to them, to verify in particular that substitutes which may be used in the installations concerned and which may reduce the emissions of volatile organic compounds are actually under development, that the work in progress, in the light of the evidence provided, is capable of perfecting such substitutes and that there is no alternative measure which may result in similar or even greater emission reductions, at a lower cost, and, in particular, that other substitutes are not already available. Furthermore, account should be taken of the relationship between, on the one hand, the emission reductions which can be achieved by means of the substitutes and the cost of those substitutes and, on the other hand, the additional emissions engendered by the time extension and the cost of any alternative measures. The duration of the time extension must not go beyond what is necessary for substitutes to be developed. That must be assessed in the light of all the relevant factors and, in particular, the magnitude of the additional emissions engendered by the time extension and the cost of any alternative measures as compared with the magnitude of the emission reductions that will be achieved by the substitutes under development and the cost of those substitutes.
4

Article 1 of that directive, entitled ‘Scope and availability of review procedures’, provides: ‘1. This Directive applies to contracts referred to in 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], unless such contracts are excluded in accordance with Articles 10 to 18 of that Directive. Contracts within the meaning of this Directive include public contracts, framework agreements, public works concessions and dynamic purchasing systems. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that, as regards contracts falling within the scope of Directive 2004/18/EC, decisions taken by the contracting authorities may be reviewed effectively and, in particular, as rapidly as possible in accordance with the conditions set out in Articles 2 to 2f of this Directive, on the grounds that such decisions have infringed [EU] law in the field of public procurement or national rules transposing that law. 2. Member States shall ensure that there is no discrimination between undertakings claiming harm in the context of a procedure for the award of a contract as a result of the distinction made by this Directive between national rules implementing [EU] law and other national rules. 3. Member States shall ensure that the review procedures are available, under detailed rules which the Member States may establish, at least to any person having or having had an interest in obtaining a particular contract and who has been or risks being harmed by an alleged infringement. …’
24

That being the case, the Rechtbank Gelderland (District Court, Gelderland) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer to the Court the following questions for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Does the complaint lodged by the Aertssen companies seeking to join a civil action to proceedings, as provided for in Article 63 et seq. of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure, given the manner in which it was lodged and the stage which the proceedings have reached, come within the scope ratione materiae of Regulation No 44/2001? If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: (2) Must Article 27(1) of that regulation be interpreted as meaning that proceedings in a foreign (in this case Belgian) court, within the meaning of that provision, have also been brought in a case in which a complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings has been lodged with a Belgian investigating magistrate and the preliminary judicial investigation has not yet been completed? (3) If the answer is in the affirmative, when will the action initiated by the lodging before the court of a complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings be deemed to have been brought and/or when must the court be deemed to be seised of that action for the purposes of Article 27(1) and Article 30 of [that regulation]? (4) If the answer is in the negative, must Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that the effect of the lodging of a complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings can be that an action will subsequently be pending before a Belgian court for the purposes of the application of that provision? (5) If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, when will proceedings be deemed to have been brought and/or when will the court be deemed to have been seised of the action for the purposes, respectively, of Article 27(1) and Article 30 of Regulation No 44/2001? (6) If a complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings has been lodged but if, at the time of lodging that complaint, proceedings as referred to in Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 are not yet thereby pending but may become so subsequently, in the course of dealing with the complaint lodged, and that with retroactive effect to the date of the lodging of the complaint, is the effect of Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 that a court seised of proceedings brought after the complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings has been lodged with the Belgian court must stay its proceedings until such time as it has been established whether proceedings as referred to in Article 27(1) have been brought in the Belgian court?’
10

The appellant relies on seven grounds in support of its appeal. In the first ground of appeal, it alleges that the General Court did not adequately examine, and erroneously applied, the requirements relating to the indication of the purpose of the request for information set out in Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003. In the second ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the obligation to state reasons for the choice of the investigating measure and in respect of the fixing of a time-limit for responding. The appellant alleges in its third ground of appeal that the General Court erred in its examination, interpretation and application of the ‘necessity’ of the information requested, within the meaning of Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003. The fourth ground of appeal relates to infringement of Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003, having regard to the lack of an obligation to prepare, present and process the information requested. The fifth ground of appeal is based on the contradiction between the grounds upheld by the General Court in its assessment of the head of claim relating to the brevity of the period allowed for a reply to the request for information. By its sixth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law by infringing the requirement for precision of legal acts and did not give sufficient reasons for the judgment under appeal with respect to the head of claim alleging the lack of precision. Finally, the seventh ground of appeal alleges breach of the rights of the defence as a result of the obligation to evaluate the information.
14

In those circumstances, the Tribunale di Udine (District Court, Udine) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘On a proper construction, do the principles and rules contained in Article 4(3) TEU and the VAT Directive, as already interpreted in the judgments of the Court of Justice in Commission v Italy (C‑132/06, EU:C:2008:412), Commission v Italy (C‑174/07, EU:C:2008:704) and Belvedere Costruzioni (C‑500/10, EU:C:2012:186), also preclude a national rule (and, therefore, in respect of the case in the main proceedings, an interpretation of Articles 162 and 182ter of the Law on bankruptcy) under which a proposal for an arrangement with creditors with the liquidation of the debtor’s assets, which provides for only partial payment of the State’s claim in respect of VAT, is permissible where there is no tax settlement and where, in respect of that claim, a larger payment in the event of bankruptcy is not foreseeable on the basis of an assessment by an independent expert and following the formal review of the court?’
28

Under Article 236 of the Customs Code: ‘1. Import duties or export duties shall be repaid in so far as it is established that when they were paid the amount of such duties was not legally owed or that the amount has been entered in the accounts contrary to Article 220(2). Import duties or export duties shall be remitted in so far as it is established that when they were entered in the accounts the amount of such duties was not legally owed or that the amount has been entered in the accounts contrary to Article 220(2). No repayment or remission shall be granted when the facts which led to the payment or entry in the accounts of an amount which was not legally owed are the result of deliberate action by the person concerned. 2. Import duties or export duties shall be repaid or remitted upon submission of an application to the appropriate customs office within a period of three years from the date on which the amount of those duties was communicated to the debtor. That period shall be extended if the person concerned provides evidence that he was prevented from submitting his application within the said period as a result of unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure. Where the customs authorities themselves discover within this period that one or other of the situations described in the first and second subparagraphs of paragraph 1 exists, they shall repay or remit on their own initiative.’
4

Article XV of Emergency Order No 8 amending and supplementing certain legislative acts and other fiscal and budgetary measures (Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 8 pentru modificarea și completarea unor acte normative și alte măsuri fiscal-bugetare), of 26 February 2014 (Monitorul Oficial al României, Part I, No 151, of 28 February 2014, ‘OUG No 8/2014’), provides: ‘1. The payment of the sums determined by judicial decision relating to the restitution of the tax on pollution for motor vehicles and the tax on polluting emissions from motor vehicles, the interest calculated until the date of full payment and legal costs, and all other sums as may be determined by the court, which became enforceable by 31 December 2015, shall be paid over a period of five calendar years by means of an annual payment of 20% of the amount payable. 2. The applications for restitution from taxpayers provided for in paragraph 1 shall be dealt with, pursuant to [Government Order No 92 on the Code of Tax Procedure (Ordonanţa Guvernului nr. 92 privind Codul de procedură fiscal) of 24 December 2003 (Monitorul Oficial al României, Part I, No 941 of 29 December 2003, ‘OUG No 92/2003’)], as subsequently amended and supplemented, within 45 days of being submitted, and the payment of annual instalments shall be made in accordance with the schedule established by the Environment Fund Office. 3. The period provided for in paragraph 1 shall run from the date on which the period referred to in paragraph 2 has elapsed. 4. During the period provided for in paragraph 1, all enforcement proceedings shall be suspended by law. 5. The sums provided for in paragraph 1, paid pursuant to the present emergency order, shall be adjusted on the basis of the consumer price index published by the National Institute of Statistics. 6. The procedure to be followed for payment by way of enforcement instrument shall be established jointly by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change and the Ministry of Public Finances, within the period referred to in paragraph 1. 7. The balance of the sum relating to enforcement instruments issued by the date on which the present emergency order enters into force and for which no enforcement proceedings have been initiated shall be paid in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6.’
The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 1031/2008, must be interpreted as meaning that ultraviolet aerodynamic particle sizer spectrometers and handheld particle counters do not fall under subheading 9027 10 10 thereof.

In that regard, the wording of subheading 9027 10 of the Combined Nomenclature refers specifically and exclusively to ’smoke analysis apparatus’. However, the objective characteristics and properties of appliances such as ultra violet aerodynamic particle sizer spectrometers and handheld particle counters do not correspond with that wording. Those apparatuses do not specifically and exclusively analyse particles derived from combustion, which, for their part, come within the concept of ‘smoke’ in accordance with the normal meaning of that word in common language. Those apparatuses also analyse particles which do not come within that concept, namely particles resulting from mechanical processes.

Therefore, in the light of the wording of subheading 9027 10 of the Combined Nomenclature, those apparatus do not fall under either that subheading or, consequently, under subheading 9027 10 10 of the Combined Nomenclature.

(see paras 27-29, 35, operative part)
4.

Appeal — 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 — Plea alleging distortion of the facts — Necessity of indicating precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and showing the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see paras 59, 69)
In order for an appeal to the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities to lie against a decision of the European Banking Authority (EBA), that decision must be either one of the decisions referred to in Articles 17 to 19 of Regulation No 1093/2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority or a decision taken in accordance with the Union acts referred to in Article 1(2) thereof.

This is not the case of an EBA decision rejecting a complaint requesting that an investigation be initiated into an alleged breach of Directive 2006/48 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions, in which the Authority did not express any view on whether or not that directive had been infringed by the competent authorities or by the credit institution concerned. In fact, that decision is not one of the decisions, referred to in Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation No 1093/2010, by which the EBA may require national supervisory authorities to take specific action, respectively, to address an emergency or to settle disagreements that may arise in cross-border situations between those authorities. That finding is a fortiori true since the complainant is not one of the entities expressly referred to in Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1093/2010 which may request the EBA to initiate an investigation into a breach of or failure to apply EU law. Moreover, the finding that the complainant is not one of the entities expressly referred to in Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1093/2010 is in no way altered by the fact that the EBA may initiate investigations on its own initiative.

(see paras 35, 37, 38, 40, 41)
Case C‑198/15

Invamed Group Ltd and Others

v

Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber))

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Section XVII — Vehicles — Chapter 87 — Vehicles other than railway or tramway rolling stock, and parts and accessories thereof — Headings 8703 and 8713 — Vehicles with battery-powered electric motors — Definition of ‘disabled persons’’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 26 May 2016

Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Interpretation — Explanatory notes to the combined nomenclature — No binding force — Obligation for those notes to comply with the provisions of the Combined Nomenclature (Council Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Commission Regulation No 1810/2004, Annex I) Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification of goods — Criteria — Characteristics and objective properties (Council Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Commission Regulation No 1810/2004, Annex I) Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — ‘For disabled persons’ within the meaning of heading 8713 of the Combined Nomenclature — Concept — Product designed solely for disabled persons — Included — Electrically-driven vehicles powered by a battery — Classification under heading 8713 of the Combined Nomenclature — Vehicles used by non-disabled persons — No effect (Council Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Commission Regulation No 1810/2004, Annex I) Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — ‘Disabled persons’ within the meaning of heading 8713 of the Combined Nomenclature — Concept — Persons affected by a non-marginal limit on their ability to walk — Included — Duration of that limitation and the existence of other limitations relating to the capacities of those persons — No effect (Council Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Commission Regulation No 1810/2004, Annex I)
The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Regulation No 1006/2011, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a mixture of crude fixed fluid vegetable oils, composed of rapeseed oil (88%) and sunflower oil (12%), must be classified as an edible mixture of vegetable oils under CN subheading 1517 90 91 or as an inedible mixture of vegetable oils under CN subheading 1518 00 31, all the factors relevant to the case must be taken into account, in so far as they relate to the objective characteristics and properties inherent in that product.

Among the relevant factors which may justify the classification of such a mixture as ‘inedible’, account should be taken of the information provided by the producer of that mixture in the context of the customs declaration, according to which, because of the characteristics of the process for its production, the presence of noxious substances in that mixture cannot be excluded. In that regard, the fact that an analysis of samples taken from such a mixture of vegetable oils has not shown that it contains any noxious substance does not suffice, by itself, to call into question the classification of the mixture in question as ‘inedible’. Such a consequence presupposes the existence of other relevant evidence capable of calling into question the accuracy of the information relating to the process for the production of the mixture in question, provided by its producer and included in that declaration, in accordance with Articles 62, 68 and 71 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005.

(see para. 57, operative part)