ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3.

The Council adopted Regulation No 4055/86 under this Article. It contains inter alia the following provisions: ‘Article 1 1. Freedom to provide maritime transport services between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall apply in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended. 2. The provisions of this Regulation shall also apply to nationals of the Member States established outside the Community and to shipping companies established outside the Community and controlled by nationals of a Member State, if their vessels are registered in that Member State in accordance with its legislation. 3. The provisions of Articles 55 to 58 and 62 of the Treaty shall apply to the matters covered by this Regulation. 4. For the purpose of this Regulation, the following shall be considered “maritime transport services between Member States and between Member States and third countries” where they are normally provided for remuneration: (a) intra-Comtnunity shipping services: the carriage of passengers or goods by sea between any port of a Member State and any port or offshore installation of another Member State; (b) third-country traffic: the carriage of passengers or goods by sea between the ports of a Member State and ports or offshore installations of a third country. ... Article 8 Without prejudice to the provisions of the Treaty relating to right of establishment, a person providing a maritime transport service may, in order to do so, temporarily pursue his activity in the Member State where the service is provided, under the same conditions as are imposed by that State on its own nationals. Article 9 As long as restrictions on freedom to provide services have not been abolished, each Member State shall apply such restrictions without distinction on grounds of nationality or residence to all persons providing services within the meaning of Article 1(1) and (2).’
((Failure to fulfil obligations – State aid incompatible with the common market – Obligation to recover – Suitability of the implementing measures))
2.

If the area actually determined is found to be less than that declared in an “area” aid application, the area actually determined on inspection shall be used for calculation of the aid. However, except in cases of force majeure, the area actually determined on inspection shall be reduced by twice the difference found if this is more than 3% or two hectares but not more than 20% of the determined area. If the difference is more than 20% of the determined area no area-linked aid shall be granted. However, in the case of a false declaration made intentionally or as a result of serious negligence: — the farmer in question shall be excluded from the aid scheme concerned for the calendar year in question, and — in the case of a false declaration intentionally made, from any aid scheme referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation... No 3508/92 for the following calendar year, in respect of an area equal to that for which his aid application was rejected. These reductions shall not be applied if the farmer can show that his determination of the area was accurately based on information recognised by the competent authority. Where a farmer has not met all the obligations incumbent on him in regard to parcels fallowed for nonfood production purposes these shall, on the occasion of inspection for the purposes of application of this article, be considered not to have been found. For the purposes of this article, “determined area” means the area for which all of the conditions laid down in the rules have been met.
((Refund of expenditure relating to hospital treatment for a pensioner in another Member State – Conditions – Social security – Articles 22, 31 and 36 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Freedom to provide services – Articles 46 EC, 49 EC and 50 EC – Fundamental rights – Right to own property))
((Privatisation of strategic undertakings – Restrictions on shareholding and involvement in management – Special shares and powers of the State ( golden shares)))
((Approximation of legislation – Food additives – Directive 95/2/EC – Derogations under Article 95(4) EC – Conditions of application))
((Common organisation of the market for milk and milk products – Articles 32 EC to 38 EC – Regulation No 26 of the Council of 4 April 1962 applying certain rules of competition to production of and trade in agricultural products – Permissibility of measures adopted under national competition law relating to agricultural co-operatives on that market))
((Poultrymeat – Export refunds – Reimbursement – Reclassification of products in the Combined Nomenclature – Administrative decision – Exhaustion of domestic remedies – Claim for payment seeking to call into question an administrative decision which has become final – Refusal – Legal authority of a final judicial decision – Temporal effects of preliminary rulings of the Court – Primacy of Community law – Article 10 EC))
((Failure to fulfil obligations – Article 8(2) and (3) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils and Article 5(1) of Council Directive 92/82/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duties on mineral oils – Failure to introduce fiscal control over the distribution and consumption of light fuel oil as prescribed by Article 8 of Directive 92/81/EEC – National legislation permitting fuel oil taxable as heating oil to be legally used as fuel in motor vehicles – Exceeding the derogations for which the Act of Accession provides – Annex XV, Title IX, Article 5(e) and (f)))
((Freedom to provide services – Air transport – Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 – Article 3 – Airport modernisation and development tax))
((Action for annulment – ECSC – Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty – Commission Decision No 2496/96/ECSC (Sixth Steel Aid Code) – Payments to compensate employees for a reduction in working hours under a collective agreement – Meaning of aid – Beneficiary of the aid – Costs payable by the undertaking – Economic advantage – Obligation to state reasons – Failure by the Commission to comply with the time-limit – Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty))
((Appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance – Staff regulations – Resettlement allowance – Action which has become devoid of purpose))
((Public service contracts – Definition of contracting authorities – Body governed by public law – Carrying on a business activity))
((Sixth VAT Directive – Taxable transactions – Concept of economic activity – Admission of a new partner to a partnership in consideration of payment of a contribution in case))
((Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Council Directive 76/464/EEC – Pollution of the aquatic environment – Pollution reduction programmes including quality objectives for certain dangerous substances))
((Agreements between the European Community and Bulgaria and Hungary establishing certain conditions for the carriage of goods by road and the promotion of combined transport – Legal basis – Articles 71 EC and 93 EC))
((Action for failure to fulfil an obligation – Procedure for the award of public service contracts – Extension of a contact for surveillance of the Belgian coast using aerial photography))
((Free movement of goods – External transit transaction – Movement under cover of a TIR carnet – Offences or irregularities – Proof of the place where the offence or irregularity was committed – Guaranteeing association – Judicial proceedings – Time-limit for furnishing proof – Obligation for the Member State that detects an offence or irregularity to investigate the place where it was actually committed))
((Interpretation of Article 39 EC – Captains and first officers in the merchant navy – Nationality – Employment in the public service – Principle of reciprocity))
26.

For the reasons set out above, I confirm the conclusions to which I came on 17 September 2002, which were as follows: (1) Articles 49 EC, 50 EC, 54 EC and 55 EC and Article 4 of Council Directive 64/427/EEC of 7 July 1964 laying down detailed provisions concerning transitional measures in respect of activities of self-employed persons in manufacturing and processing industries falling within ISIC Major Groups 23-40 (Industry and small craft industries) do not preclude rules of a Member State which make the carrying out on its territory of skilled trade work by providers of services established in other Member States subject not only to examination of the conditions governing access to the activities concerned but also to a requirement of entry on the skilled trades register where such entry is not such as to delay or complicate exercise of the right to freedom to provide services and entails neither additional administrative costs nor the compulsory payment of subscriptions to the chamber of trades. (2) Where the activities of the person or undertaking on the territory of the host Member State have been pursued over a long period, on a virtually continuous basis and under a whole series of contracts, it falls to the competent court to determine at what point in time the situation must be regarded as establishment and must, therefore, give rise to the payment of subscriptions to the chamber of trades.
((VAT – Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC – Exemption – Concept of the provision of medical care – Treatment having no therapeutic aim – Interventions by a doctor acting as an expert))
((Appeal – Access to documents – Decisions 93/731/EC and 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom – Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in the field of international relations – Partial access))
‘(1) (a)

Is the reference in Article 1(3) of Council Directive 93/104/EC ... to Article 2(2) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, under which the provisions of the directives are not applicable where characteristics peculiar to certain specific activities in the civil protection services inevitably conflict with their application, to be construed as meaning that the activity of the applicant, who is a qualified worker in the emergency medical assistance service, is caught by this exclusion?
(Freedom of movement of workers – Social security – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Care insurance – Definition of worker – Third parties caring for persons reliant on care – Pension contributions – Discrimination on the basis of place of residence)(Freedom of movement of workers – Social security – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Care insurance – Definition of worker – Third parties caring for persons reliant on care – Pension contributions – Discrimination on the basis of place of residence)
((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Articles 11 and 4 of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) – Failure to communicate to the Commission, within the prescribed period, the plans, outlines and summaries required by the directive))
((Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 98/83/EC – Quality of water intended for human consumption))
((Tax paid in error by a non-taxable person and mentioned on the invoice issued by such a service provider))
((Appeal – Substances having a hormonal action – Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 96/22/EC – Action for damages – Direct applicability of the WTO agreements – Legal consequences of recommendations and rulings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body))
((Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Directive 85/337/EEC – Old dormant mining permissions – Approval of new planning conditions – Consent – No assessment))
(Articles 56 EC and 58 EC – Free movement of capital – National rules governing the taxation of revenue from capital assets)
(Common agricultural policy – Support system for producers of arable crops – Compensatory payments for areas down to arable crops or subject to set-aside – Exclusion for land under ‘permanent crops’ – Definition)
(Brussels Convention – Proceedings to establish a liability limitation fund for the use of a seagoing vessel – Action for damages – Article 21 – Lis pendens – Identical parties – Court first seised – Identical object cause of action – None – Article 25 – Definition of ‘judgment’ – Article 27(2) – Refusal to recognise)
(Community Customs Code – Article 202 – Unlawful introduction of goods into the customs territory of the Community – Customs debt – Liability of the employer)
(Equal pay for men and women – Bridging allowance – Social plan – Different minimum ages for men and women – Risk of long-term unemployment)
(Municipal duties on advertising by means of bill posting – Public undertakings (Article 86 EC) – Abuse of a dominant position (Article 82 EC) – State aid (Articles 87 and 88 EC) – Freedom to provide services (Articles 49 EC and Article 50 EC) – Admissibility of a reference for a preliminary ruling (Article 234 EC))
(Public contracts – Participation in a public contract – Exclusion from that public contract of any person who has contributed to the works, supplies or services concerned)
(Community Customs Code – Conditions governing customs supervision – Incurrence of the customs debt on importation – Presentation to customs of goods liable to duties – Effects of a customs declaration under an incorrect description (‘cookware’ instead of ‘cigarettes’) – Subsequent removal from customs supervision)
32.

These criticisms relate to the General Court’s reasoning in paragraphs 49 to 56 of the judgment under appeal. In paragraph 50 of that judgment, the General Court pointed out, first, that administrative measures must be adopted in compliance with the competences attributed to the various administrative bodies. Then, in paragraphs 51 and 52 of the judgment under appeal, it referred to the third paragraph of Article 249 EC (now third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU) and held that, in the field of the environment, which is governed by Articles 174 EC to 176 EC (now Articles 191 TFEU to 193 TFEU), the European Union and the Member States share competence. It concluded that, where there is no Community rule which prescribes clearly and precisely the form and methods which Member State must use, the Member States are, in principle, completely free to choose the form and methods and that it is therefore for the Commission to prove to the required legal standard that the instruments used by the Member States are contrary to European Union law. As to the powers of the Member States, the General Court found in paragraph 53 of the judgment under appeal that the Member States alone have the power, first, to draw up the NAP and, secondly, to take final decisions fixing, in particular, the total quantity of allowances. In the exercise of those powers, the Member State would have a certain room for manoeuvre. In paragraphs 54 and 55 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court found that, under Article 9(3) of the Directive, the Commission is authorised, first, to verify whether the NAPs conform to the criteria set out in the Directive and, secondly, to reject NAPs on the grounds of incompatibility. As is clear from paragraph 56 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court considered the Commission’s review to be a legality review.
33.

On 18 December 2008, the Council adopted Regulation No 1355/2008. recital 17 of the Regulation is worded as follows: ‘Following the imposition of provisional measures, all three Chinese sampled cooperating exporting producers and two unrelated EC importers questioned the use of Community Industry prices for the calculation of normal value. It was submitted that normal value should have been calculated on the basis of the [Chinese] production costs, account taken of any appropriate adjustments relating to the differences between the EC and the [Chinese] markets. In this respect it is noted that the use of information from a non-market economy country and in particular from companies which have not been granted MET would be contrary to the provisions of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation. Therefore, this argument is rejected. It was also argued that data on prices from all other importing countries or relevant published information could have been used as a reasonable solution, account taken of the lack of analogue country cooperation. However, such general information, in contrast to the data used by the Commission, could not have been verified and cross checked with regard to their accuracy in line with the provisions of Article 6(8) of the basic Regulation. This argument is therefore rejected. No other argument was submitted that could cast doubt on the fact that the methodology used by the Commission is in line with the provisions of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation and, in particular, the fact that it constitutes in this particular case the only remaining reasonable basis for calculation of normal value.’
23.

Such a contribution to a third party may also be regarded as the fulfilment of an obligation for the benefit of the insolvency debtor from yet another point of view. After all, in so far as the insolvency debtor has an obligation to that effect towards the third party, for example to make a payment in fulfilment of a claim to a purchase price, the insolvency debtor is discharged from his obligation by honouring the obligation for the benefit of the third party. In this sense, too, therefore, the contribution made by the third-party debtor to the third party operates ‘[to] the benefit’ of the insolvency debtor. So it is in this case too: the payment to Kostner operates to the benefit of Grontimmo, since the latter is thus discharged from the claim to the purchase price which was held over it by Kostner.
21.

As it considers that the resolution of the dispute before it depends, in particular, on the interpretation of Articles 3 and 14 of the SPC Regulation, the Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage decided, by order of 12 October 2012, received at the Court Registry on 31 October 2012, to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. Does [the SPC Regulation], more particularly Article 3(c) thereof, preclude, in a situation where there is a basic patent in force which protects several products, the holder of the basic patent from being granted a certificate for each of the protected products? 2. If the first question must be answered in the affirmative, how should Article 3(c) of [the SPC Regulation] be interpreted in the situation where there is one basic patent in force which protects several products, and where, at the date of the application for a certificate in respect of one of the products (A) protected by the basic patent, no certificates had yet been granted in respect of other products (B, C) protected by the same basic patent, but where certificates were nevertheless granted in respect of the products (B, C) before a decision was made with regard to the application for a certificate in respect of the first-mentioned product (A)? 3. Is it significant for the answer to the previous question whether the application in respect of one of the products (A) protected by the basic patent was submitted on the same date as the applications in respect of other products (B, C) protected by the same basic patent? 4. If the first question must be answered in the affirmative, may a certificate be granted for a product protected by a basic patent which is in force if a certificate had already been granted earlier for another product protected by the same basic patent, but where the applicant surrenders the latter certificate with a view to obtaining a new certificate on the basis of the same basic patent? 5. If the issue of whether the surrender has retroactive effect is relevant for the purpose of answering the previous question, is the question of whether surrender has retroactive effect governed by Article 14(b) of [the SPC Regulation] or by national law? If the question of whether surrender has retroactive effect is governed by Article 14(b) of [the SPC Regulation], should that provision be interpreted to mean that surrender does have retroactive effect?’
6.

The following provisions of Law No 586/1992 on income tax (‘the income tax law’), applicable at the relevant time, are relevant to the questions raised by the disputes in the main proceedings: ‘… Paragraph 2 Persons liable to tax on the income of natural persons 1. Persons liable to tax on the income of natural persons are natural persons (hereinafter referred to as “taxpayers”). 2. Taxpayers who have their residence or habitual abode in the Czech Republic shall be liable to tax both on income from sources in the Czech Republic and on income from foreign sources. 3. Taxpayers not referred to in subparagraph 2 and those in respect of whom international agreements so provide shall be liable to tax only on income from sources in the Czech Republic (Paragraph 22). Taxpayers staying in the Czech Republic solely for the purposes of study or receiving medical treatment shall be liable to tax only on income from sources in the Czech Republic even if their habitual abode is in the Czech Republic. 4. Taxpayers having their habitual abode in the Czech Republic are taxpayers who stay there, either continuously or in several periods, for at least 183 days in any calendar year, the 183-day period including every day or part of a day of stay. For the purposes of this law a place of residence in the Czech Republic shall mean a place where the taxpayer has a stable dwelling in circumstances from which it may be inferred that he intends to stay permanently in that dwelling. … Paragraph 6 Income from non-independent employment and emoluments … 2. A taxpayer who derives income from non-independent activity and emoluments shall be referred to hereafter as an “employee” and the payer of that income as the “employer”. “Employer” shall also mean a taxpayer referred to in Paragraph 2(2) or Paragraph 17(3) for whom employees perform work under his instructions, even where the income for such work is paid, on the basis of a contractual relationship, through the intermediary of a person established or residing abroad. For the purposes of the other provisions of this law, income thus paid shall be regarded as income paid by a taxpayer referred to in Paragraph 2(2) or Paragraph 17(3). Where the employer’s payments to a person established or residing abroad include an amount for intermediation, at least 60% of the total sum paid shall be regarded as income of the employee. … Paragraph 38c Foreign taxable persons A taxable person in accordance with Paragraphs 38d, 38e and 38h shall also include a taxpayer referred to in Paragraph 2(3) and Paragraph 17(4) who has a fixed establishment in the Czech Republic (Paragraph 22(2)) or employs his employees there for longer than 183 days, except in cases of service provision within the meaning of Paragraph 22(1)(c) … . In the case referred to in the second and third sentences of Paragraph 6(2), a taxpayer referred to in Paragraph 2(3) and Paragraph 17(4) shall not be treated as a taxable person.’