ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
12.

Article 15 of Regulation No 1008/2008, entitled ‘Provision of intra-Community air services’, which forms part of Chapter III, itself entitled ‘Access to routes’, provides as follows: ‘1. Community air carriers shall be entitled to operate intra-Community air services. 2. Member States shall not subject the operation of intra-Community air services by a Community air carrier to any permit or authorisation. Member States shall not require Community air carriers to provide any documents or information which they have already supplied to the competent licensing authority, provided that the relevant information may be obtained from the competent licensing authority in due time. ... 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of bilateral agreements between Member States, and subject to the Community competition rules applicable to undertakings, Community air carriers shall be permitted by the Member State(s) concerned to combine air services and to enter into code share arrangements with any air carrier on air services to, from or via any airport in their territory from or to any point(s) in third countries. A Member State may, in the framework of the bilateral air service agreement with the third country concerned, impose restrictions on code share arrangements between Community air carriers and air carriers of a third country, in particular if the third country concerned does not allow similar commercial opportunities to Community air carriers operating from the Member State concerned. In doing so, Member States shall ensure that restrictions imposed under such agreements do not restrict competition and are non-discriminatory between Community air carriers and that they are not more restrictive than necessary.’
75.

It not possible to determine in detail from the objectives and scheme of Directive 92/85 the extent to which each woman has a right to leave, in particular whether the maternity leave is to be divided between them equally, and what procedure is to be followed where it is not possible to reach agreement between them, but parameters to be taken into account in that regard may be inferred from the objectives and scheme of Directive 92/85. The division of the maternity leave must in any event take account of the interests protected by that directive. Before the birth, the protection of the pregnant woman and, after the birth, protection of the woman who has recently given birth and the child’s best interests are the main criteria. Any agreed division of the maternity leave – which in particular may not be detrimental to the child’s best interests – must take account of these legally protected interests. Since Article 8 of Directive 92/85 refers generally to national legislation as regards the detailed rules governing maternity leave, it is reasonable to follow its approach in other respects. The application by analogy of the rules on joint and several creditors might also be conceivable.
This was the basis on which the so-called payment entitlements could be calculated under Article 43 of Regulation No 1782/2003:

‘(1) Without prejudice to Article 48, a farmer shall receive a payment entitlement per hectare which is calculated by dividing the reference amount by the three-year average number of all hectares which in the reference period gave right to direct payments listed in Annex VI.

The total number of payment entitlements shall be equal to the above mentioned average number of hectares.

…

(2) …

(3) For the purpose … “forage area” shall mean the area of the holding that was available throughout the calendar year … for rearing animals including areas in shared use and areas which were subject to mixed cultivation. The forage area shall not include:

— buildings, woods, ponds, paths;

— …

(4) The payment entitlements per hectare shall not be modified save as otherwise provided.’
5.

Recitals 9, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 25 in the preamble to Regulation No 6/2002 state: ‘(9) The substantive provisions of this Regulation on design law should be aligned with the respective provisions in Directive 98/71/EC. … (14) The assessment as to whether a design has individual character should be based on whether the overall impression produced on an informed user viewing the design clearly differs from that produced on him by the existing design corpus, taking into consideration the nature of the product to which the design is applied or in which it is incorporated, and in particular the industrial sector to which it belongs and the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design. … (16) Some of those sectors produce large numbers of designs for products frequently having a short market life where protection without the burden of registration formalities is an advantage and the duration of protection is of lesser significance. On the other hand, there are sectors of industry which value the advantages of registration for the greater legal certainty it provides and which require the possibility of a longer term of protection corresponding to the foreseeable market life of their products. (17) This calls for two forms of protection, one being a short-term unregistered design and the other being a longer term registered design. … (19) A Community design should not be upheld unless the design is new and unless it also possesses an individual character in comparison with other designs. … (25) Those sectors of industry producing large numbers of possibly short-lived designs over short periods of time of which only some may be eventually commercialised will find advantage in the unregistered Community design. Furthermore, there is also a need for these sectors to have easier recourse to the registered Community design. Therefore, the option of combining a number of designs in one multiple application would satisfy that need. However, the designs contained in a multiple application may be dealt with independently of each other for the purposes of enforcement of rights, licensing, rights in rem, levy of execution, insolvency proceedings, surrender, renewal, assignment, deferred publication or declaration of invalidity.’
10.

Furthermore, Article 48 of the Law on international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters provides: ‘(1) The court, when delivering its decision, shall be bound by the findings of fact of the foreign court. (2) In the course of the procedure before it, the court shall determine the legal consequences deriving from the conviction under Hungarian law. If the sentence or measure imposed by the judgment of the foreign court is not fully compatible with Hungarian law, the court shall make a finding in its decision as to the sentence or measure applicable under Hungarian law, so that it corresponds as closely as possible to the sentence or measure imposed by the foreign court, and, where an application is made for enforcement, shall accordingly rule on the enforcement of the sentence or measure. (3) When determining the applicable sentence or measure, reference shall be made to the law that applied at the time the offence was committed. If, under the Hungarian law applicable at the time the sentence or applicable measure is determined, the act in question no longer constitutes a criminal offence or is subject to a lesser punishment, that later law shall apply.’
51.

In the light of the foregoing, I therefore propose that the Court give the following answer to the second question submitted by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court of Appeal for Trade and Industry): On a proper construction of Article 25(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, and Article 12 of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), as amended by Directive 2009/136, it is contrary to those provisions for an undertaking that has received a request for its subscribers’ personal data to be made available to draw a distinction, when obtaining its subscribers’ consent, according to the Member State in which the telephone directory service and/or telephone directory enquiry service is offered, provided, however, that such data is intended to be used for purposes identical to those for which it was collected with a view to its first publication. That undertaking must therefore ensure that, when the subscription contract is signed, subscribers receive clear, precise information on the different aspects of the processing of their data and, in particular, on the supply of such data for the purpose of its publication in a telephone directory or of its use by a telephone directory enquiries service in a Member State other than the subscriber’s Member State of residence.
13.

Article 2 of Directive 2003/37 provides: ‘For the purposes of this Directive: (a) “EC type-approval” means the procedure whereby a Member State certifies that a type of vehicle, system, component or separate technical unit satisfies the relevant technical requirements of this Directive; the EC type-approval of systems, components and separate technical units may also be referred to as “EC component type-approval”; … (c) “approval of single vehicles” means the procedure whereby a Member State certifies that a vehicle approved individually satisfies the national requirements; (d) “vehicle” means any tractor, trailer or interchangeable towed machinery, whether complete, incomplete or completed, which is intended to be used in agriculture or forestry; (e) “vehicle category” means any set of vehicles which have identical design characteristics; (f) “type of vehicle” means vehicles of a particular category which do not differ in the essential respects referred to in Annex II, Chapter A; the different variants and versions of a type of vehicle set out in Annex II, Chapter A are permissible; … (p) “manufacturer” means the natural or legal person who is responsible to the EC type-approval authority for all aspects of the type-approval process and for ensuring conformity of production, regardless of whether that person be directly involved in all stages of the construction of a vehicle, system, component or separate technical unit; the following are also considered to be manufacturers: (i) any natural or legal person who, for his own use, designs, has designed, manufactures or has manufactured a vehicle, system, component or separate technical unit; (ii) any natural or legal person who is responsible for ensuring compliance with this Directive at the time a vehicle, system, component or separate technical unit is placed on the market or enters into service; … (q) “entry into service” means the first use for its intended purpose within the Community of any vehicle which requires no installation or adjustment by the manufacturer or a third party designated by him prior to its first use; the date it is registered or placed for the first time on the market shall be considered the date of entry into service; … (z) “certificate of conformity” means the document set out in Annex III, delivered by the manufacturer, in order to certify that a particular vehicle, approved according to this Directive, complies with all applicable regulatory instruments at the time of its production and stating that it may be registered or put into service in all Member States without any additional inspection.’
Article 4(A) of the Paris Convention ( 2 ) lays down the right of priority which arises from the registration of intellectual property.

‘A. [National filing]

(1) Any person who has duly filed an application for a patent, or for the registration of a utility model, or of an industrial design, or of a trademark, in one of the countries of the Union, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing in the other countries, a right of priority during the periods hereinafter fixed.

(2) Any filing that is equivalent to a regular national filing under the domestic legislation of any country of the Union or under bilateral or multilateral treaties concluded between countries of the Union shall be recognised as giving rise to the right of priority.

(3) By a regular national filing is meant any filing that is adequate to establish the date on which the application was filed in the country concerned, whatever may be the subsequent fate of the application.’
48.

I am not persuaded beyond doubt by Germany’s line of reasoning here. In particular, its approach is based on the premiss that the objective of benefiting workers in financial need can be said to disappear when the recipient of the benefit in question becomes entitled to a pension. That presupposes that the pension will be of a sufficiently high value to compensate for that financial need. Whilst the level of state retirement pensions may vary from one Member State to another, it cannot be assumed that, even when payable at the full rate, those pensions will in all cases be sufficient for the recipient to live on in any degree of comfort. When the amount in question is reduced to take account of early payment, it will be even more likely that the sum received will not represent a satisfactory income. In that case, it cannot be said that the recipient’s financial need ‘can be said to disappear’. I therefore conclude that the objective of providing a satisfactory income for workers in circumstances such as those of Mr Bedi can be said to disappear — and hence that the measure can be said to be appropriate — only when the difference between the amount of the pension they are entitled to and that of the assistance that is discontinued is not such that those workers will return, or risk returning, to the situation of financial need that the assistance was intended to provide against. Whether or not that is the case will be a matter which it is for the national court to verify.
7.

Section 2, entitled ‘Requirements prohibited or subject to evaluation’, of Chapter III of the Services Directive, which relates to ‘freedom of establishment for providers’, consists of Articles 14 and 15. Article 14 of the directive, relates to ‘prohibited requirements’, whereas Article 15 of the directive, on ‘requirements to be evaluated’ provides as follows: ‘1. Member States shall examine whether, under their legal system, any of the requirements listed in paragraph 2 are imposed and shall ensure that any such requirements are compatible with the conditions laid down in paragraph 3. Member States shall adapt their laws, regulations or administrative provisions so as to make them compatible with those conditions. 2. Member States shall examine whether their legal system makes access to a service activity or the exercise of it subject to compliance with any of the following non-discriminatory requirements: … (d) requirements, other than those concerning matters covered by Directive 2005/36/EC[ ( 5 )] or provided for in other Community instruments, which reserve access to the service activity in question to particular providers by virtue of the specific nature of the activity; 3. Member States shall verify that the requirements referred to in paragraph 2 satisfy the following conditions: (a) non-discrimination: requirements must be neither directly nor indirectly discriminatory according to nationality nor, with regard to companies, according to the location of the registered office; (b) necessity: requirements must be justified by an overriding reason relating to the public interest; (c) proportionality: requirements must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective pursued; they must not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective and it must not be possible to replace those requirements with other, less restrictive measures which attain the same result. …’
9.

Article 3 of Regulation No 1484/95 states: ‘1. The additional duty shall be established on the basis of the [CIF] import price of the consignment in question in accordance with the provisions of Article 4. 2. When the [CIF] import price per 100 kg of a consignment is higher than the applicable representative price referred to in Article 2(1), the importer shall present to the competent authorities of the importing Member States at least the following proofs: – the purchasing contract, or any other equivalent document, – the insurance contract, – the invoice, – the certificate of origin (where applicable), – the transport contract, – and, in the case of sea transport, the bill of lading. 3. In the case referred to in paragraph 2, the importer must lodge the security referred to in Article 248(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 …, equal to the amount of additional duty which he would have paid if the calculation of the additional duty had been made on the basis of the representative price applicable to the product in question, as shown in Annex I. 4. The importer shall have one month from the sale of the products in question, subject to a limit of six months from the date of acceptance of the declaration of release for free circulation, to prove that the consignment was disposed of under conditions confirming the correctness of the prices referred to in paragraph 2. Failure to meet one or other of these deadlines shall entail the loss of the security lodged. However, the time limit of six months may be extended by the competent authorities by a maximum of three months at the request of the importer, which must be duly substantiated. The security lodged shall be released to the extent that proof of the conditions of disposal is provided to the satisfaction of the customs authorities. Otherwise, the security shall be forfeit by way of payment of the additional duties. 5. If on verification the competent authorities establish that the requirements of this Article have not been met, they shall recover the duty due in accordance with Article 220 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. The amount of the duty to be recovered or remaining to be recovered shall include interest from the date the goods were released for free circulation up to the date of recovery. The interest rate applied shall be that in force for recovery operations under national law.’
2.

Article 21(1) and (3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for taxation of energy products and electricity ( 3 ) provides: ‘1. In addition to the general provisions defining the chargeable event and the provisions for payment set out in [Council] Directive 92/12/EEC [of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1)], the amount of taxation on energy products shall also become due on the occurrence of one of the chargeable events mentioned in Article 2(3). … 3. The consumption of energy products within the curtilage of an establishment producing energy products shall not be considered as a chargeable event giving rise to taxation, if the consumption consists of energy products produced within the curtilage of the establishment. Member States may also consider the consumption of electricity and other energy products not produced within the curtilage of such an establishment and the consumption of energy products and electricity within the curtilage of an establishment producing fuels to be used for generation of electricity as not giving rise to a chargeable event. Where the consumption is for purposes not related to the production of energy products and in particular for the propulsion of vehicles, this shall be considered a chargeable event, giving rise to taxation’.
12.

Article 23 of Regulation No 834/2007, entitled ‘Use of terms referring to organic production’, provides: ‘1. For the purposes of this Regulation a product shall be regarded as bearing terms referring to the organic production method where, in the labelling, advertising material or commercial documents, such a product, its ingredients or feed materials are described in terms suggesting to the purchaser that the product, its ingredients or feed materials have been obtained in accordance with the rules laid down in this Regulation. In particular, the terms listed in the Annex, their derivatives or diminutives, such as “bio” and “eco”, alone or combined, may be used throughout the [European Union] and in any [EU] language for the labelling and advertising of products which satisfy the requirements set out under or pursuant to this Regulation. In the labelling and advertising of live or unprocessed agricultural products terms referring to the organic production method may be used only where, in addition, all the ingredients of that product have also been produced in accordance with the requirements laid down in this Regulation. 2. The terms referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be used anywhere in the [European Union] and in any [EU] language for the labelling, advertising and commercial documents of a product which does not satisfy the requirements set out under this Regulation, unless they are not applied to agricultural products in food or feed or clearly have no connection with organic production. Furthermore, any terms, including terms used in trademarks, or practices used in labelling or advertising liable to mislead the consumer or user by suggesting that a product or its ingredients satisfy the requirements set out under this Regulation shall not be used. … 4. As regards processed food, the terms referred to in paragraph 1 may be used: (a) in the sales description, provided that: (i) the processed food complies with Article 19; (ii) at least 95% by weight, of its ingredients of agricultural origin are organic; (b) only in the list of ingredients, provided that the food complies with Article 19(1), 19(2)(a), 19(2)(b) and 19(2)(d); …’
6.

Under Article 7 of that convention: ‘1. In case of wrongful removal or retention of the child, the authorities of the Contracting State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention keep their jurisdiction until the child has acquired a habitual residence in another State, and: (a) each person, institution or other body having rights of custody has acquiesced in the removal or retention; or (b) the child has resided in that other State for a period of at least one year after the person, institution or any other body having rights of custody has or should have had knowledge of the whereabouts of the child, no request for return lodged within that period is still pending, and the child is settled in his or her new environment. 2. The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where: (a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and (b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention. The rights of custody mentioned in subparagraph (a) above may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State. 3. So long as the authorities first mentioned in paragraph 1 keep their jurisdiction, the authorities of the Contracting State to which the child has been removed or in which he or she has been retained can take only such urgent measures under Article 11 as are necessary for the protection of the person or property of the child.’