ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
10

Article 25 of the CFP Regulation, which was inserted into Part V thereof, entitled ‘Scientific base for fisheries management’, provides: ‘1. Member States shall, in accordance with the rules adopted in the area of data collection, collect biological, environmental, technical, and socio-economic data necessary for fisheries management, manage those data and make them available to end-users, including bodies designated by the Commission. The acquisition and management of such data shall be eligible for funding through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund in accordance with a future Union legal act establishing the conditions for the financial support for maritime and fisheries policy for the period 2014-2020. Those data shall, in particular, enable the assessment of: (a) the state of exploited marine biological resources, (b) the level of fishing and the impact that fishing activities have on the marine biological resources and on the marine eco-systems, and (c) the socio-economic performance of the fisheries, aquaculture and processing sectors within and outside Union waters. 2. The collection, management and use of data shall be based on the following principles: (a) accuracy and reliability, and collection in a timely manner; (b) the use of coordination mechanisms with a view to avoiding duplication of data collection for different purposes; (c) safe storage and protection of collected data in computerised databases, and their public availability where appropriate, including at aggregated level, whilst ensuring confidentiality; (d) access by the Commission, or by bodies designated by it, to the national databases and systems used for processing the collected data for the purpose of verification of the existence and quality of the data; (e) the availability in a timely manner of the relevant data and the respective methodologies by which they are obtained, for bodies with a research or management interest in the scientific analysis of data in the fisheries sector and for any interested parties, save in circumstances where protection and confidentiality are required under applicable Union law. 3. Every year, Member States shall submit to the Commission a report on the execution of their national data collection programmes and shall make it publicly available. The Commission shall assess the annual report on data collection after consulting its scientific advisory body and, where appropriate, regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) to which the Union is a contracting party or observer and relevant international scientific bodies. 4. Member States shall ensure the national coordination of the collection and management of scientific data for fisheries management, including socio-economic data. To this end, they shall designate a national correspondent and organise an annual national coordination meeting. The Commission shall be informed of the national coordination activities and be invited to the coordination meetings. …’
7

Article 8 of that directive provides: ‘1. Member States shall provide for performers the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit the broadcasting by wireless means and the communication to the public of their performances, except where the performance is itself already a broadcast performance or is made from a fixation. 2. Member States shall provide a right in order to ensure that a single equitable remuneration is paid by the user, if a phonogram published for commercial purposes, or a reproduction of such phonogram, is used for broadcasting by wireless means or for any communication to the public, and to ensure that this remuneration is shared between the relevant performers and phonogram producers. Member States may, in the absence of agreement between the performers and phonogram producers, lay down the conditions as to the sharing of this remuneration between them. 3. Member States shall provide for broadcasting organisations the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit the rebroadcasting of their broadcasts by wireless means, as well as the communication to the public of their broadcasts if such communication is made in places accessible to the public against payment of an entrance fee.’
39

Notaries also carry out activities relating to dissolution of registered partnerships concluded between two persons of the same sex who have reached the age of 18 years. That procedure is governed by Articles 36/A to 36/D of the Law on non-contentious notarial procedures. According to the relevant provisions of that law, it is possible to obtain before the notary the dissolution of the registered partnership on the condition that the registered partners request it jointly and freely, that neither registered partner has a child in respect of which the partners jointly assume a maintenance obligation and that the registered partners have reached an agreement, in a notarial instrument or in a private instrument countersigned by a lawyer, on matters relating to the maintenance obligation owed in law by one to the other, on the use of the common dwelling and on the distribution of the joint assets of the partnership. The formal approval of an agreement between the parties has the same effect as an agreement approved by a court, and a formal decision dissolving a registered partnership has the same effect as the judgment of a court. If that agreement cannot be approved or if the conditions for the dissolution of the partnership registered before the notary are not met, the notary refuses the approval of that agreement and rejects the request for dissolution of the partnership.
10

Article 5 of that regulation, headed ‘Access to the market’, provides: ‘1. Regular services shall be open to all subject, where appropriate, to compulsory reservation. Such services shall be subject to authorisation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III. Regular services from a Member State to a third country and vice versa shall be subject to authorisation in accordance with the bilateral agreement between the Member State and the third country and, where appropriate, the transited Member State, as long as the necessary agreement between the Community and the third country concerned has not been concluded. The regular nature of the service is not affected by any adaptation of the conditions under which the service is operated. The organisation of parallel or temporary services, serving the same public as existing regular services, the non-serving of certain stops and the serving of additional stops on existing regular services shall be governed by the same rules as those applicable to existing regular services. 2. Special regular services shall include: (a) the carriage of workers between home and work; (b) carriage of school pupils and students to and from the educational institution. The fact that a special service may be varied according to the needs of users shall not affect its classification as a regular service. Special regular services shall not be subject to authorisation in accordance with Chapter III where they are covered by a contract concluded between the organiser and the carrier. … 5. Own-account transport operations shall be exempt from any system of authorisation but shall be subject to a system of certificates. The certificates shall be issued by the competent authorities of the Member State in which the vehicle is registered and shall be valid for the entire journey including transit. …’
3

Recitals 2, 7, 11, 12 and 22 of Directive 2003/96 state: ‘(2) The absence of Community provisions imposing a minimum rate of taxation on electricity and energy products other than mineral oils may adversely affect the proper functioning of the internal market. (3) The proper functioning of the internal market and the achievement of the objectives of other Community policies require minimum levels of taxation to be laid down at Community level for most energy products, including electricity, natural gas and coal. (4) Appreciable differences in the national levels of energy taxation applied by Member States could prove detrimental to the proper functioning of the internal market. (5) The establishment of appropriate Community minimum levels of taxation may enable existing differences in the national levels of taxation to be reduced. (6) In accordance with Article 6 of the [EC] Treaty, environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Community policies. (7) As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Community has ratified the Kyoto Protocol. The taxation of energy products and, where appropriate, electricity is one of the instruments available for achieving the Kyoto Protocol objectives. … (11) Fiscal arrangements made in connection with the implementation of this Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity are a matter for each Member State to decide. In this regard, Member States might decide not to increase the overall tax burden if they consider that the implementation of such a principle of tax neutrality could contribute to the restructuring and the modernisation of their tax systems by encouraging behaviour conducive to greater protection of the environment and increased labour use. (12) Energy prices are key elements of Community energy, transport and environment policies. … (22) Energy products should essentially be subject to a Community framework when used as heating fuel or motor fuel. To that extent, it is in the nature and the logic of the tax system to exclude from the scope of the framework dual uses and non-fuel uses of energy products as well as mineralogical processes. Electricity used in similar ways should be treated on an equal footing.’
10

Article 13 of the same regulation, entitled ‘Health claims other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health’, provides: ‘1. Health claims describing or referring to: (a) the role of a nutrient or other substance in growth, development and the functions of the body; or (b) psychological and behavioural functions; or (c) without prejudice to [Commission] Directive 96/8/EC [of 26 February 1996 on foods intended for use in energy-restricted diets for weight reduction (OJ 1996 L 55, p. 22)], slimming or weight-control or a reduction in the sense of hunger or an increase in the sense of satiety or to the reduction of the available energy from the diet, which are indicated in the list provided for in paragraph 3 may be made without undergoing the procedures laid down in Articles 15 to 19, if they are: (i) based on generally accepted scientific evidence; and (ii) well understood by the average consumer. 2. Member States shall provide the Commission with lists of claims as referred to in paragraph 1 by 31 January 2008 at the latest accompanied by the conditions applying to them and by references to the relevant scientific justification. 3. After consulting the [EFSA], the Commission shall adopt … a Community list designed to amend non-essential elements of the Regulation by supplementing it, of permitted claims as referred to in paragraph 1, and all necessary conditions for the use of these claims by 31 January 2010 at the latest. 4. Any changes to the list referred to in paragraph 3, based on generally accepted scientific evidence and designed to amend non-essential elements of this Regulation by supplementing it, shall be adopted … after consulting [the EFSA], on the Commission’s own initiative or following a request by a Member State. 5. Any additions of claims to the list referred to in paragraph 3 based on newly developed scientific evidence shall be adopted following the procedure laid down in Article 18, except claims referring to children’s development and health ...’
The term ‘judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, is an autonomous concept of EU law and that provision must be interpreted as meaning that a police service is not covered by the term ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of the same Article 6(1), meaning that the European arrest warrant issued by that police service with a view to executing a judgment imposing a custodial sentence cannot be regarded as a ‘judicial decision’, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299.

The principle of mutual recognition, enshrined in Article 1(2) of the Framework Decision, pursuant to which the executing judicial authority is required to execute the arrest warrant issued by the issuing judicial authority, is founded on the premiss that a judicial authority has intervened prior to the execution of the European arrest warrant, for the purposes of exercising its review. However, the issue of an arrest warrant by a non-judicial authority, such as a police service, does not provide the executing judicial authority with an assurance that the issue of that European arrest warrant has undergone such judicial approval and cannot, therefore, suffice to justify the high level of confidence between the Member States which forms the very basis of the Framework Decision. In that regard, the specific organisation of police services within the executive and the degree of autonomy they might have is irrelevant.

(see points 44-45, 52, operative part)
Case C‑146/16

Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV

v

DHL Paket GmbH

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair business practices — Advertisement in a print medium — Omission of material information — Access to that information via the website by means of which the products concerned are distributed — Products sold by the person who published the advertisement or by a third party)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 30 March 2017

Approximation of laws — Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices — Directive 2005/29 — Misleading omissions — Information considered to be material in the context of an invitation to purchase — Definition — Scope — Printed advertisement for specific products, those products being obtained via the website of the undertaking advertising those products, which is referred to in that advertisement — Included — Assessment by the national court — Criteria

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/29, Art. 7(4))

Article 7(4)(b) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that an advertisement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which falls within the definition of an ‘invitation to purchase’ within the meaning of that directive, may satisfy the obligation regarding information laid down in that provision. It is for the referring court to examine, on a case-by-case basis, first, whether the limitations of space in the advertisement warrant information on the supplier being provided only upon access to the online sales platform and, secondly, whether, so far as the online sales platform is concerned, the information required by Article 7(4)(b) of that directive is communicated simply and quickly.

(see para. 33, operative part)
–

it is for the authorities of the Member State having to carry out the transfer and, if necessary, its courts to eliminate any serious doubts concerning the impact of the transfer on the state of health of the person concerned by taking the necessary precautions for the transfer to take place in conditions enabling appropriate and sufficient protection of that person's state of health. If, taking into account the particular severity of the illness of the applicant for asylum concerned, taking those precautions is not sufficient to ensure that his transfer does not entail a risk of a significant and permanent worsening of his state of health, it is for the authorities of the Member States concerned to suspend the enforcement of the transfer of the person concerned for such time as his state renders him unfit for such a transfer, and
1.

Declares that, in failing to ensure that, for the German ports of Düsseldorf, Köln-Niehl I, Godorf, Duisburg-Rheinhausen, Neuss, Duisburg Außen-/Parallelhafen, Krefeld-Linn, Stromhafen Krefeld, Duisburg Ruhrort-Meiderich, Gelsenkirchen and Mülheim, in the Land of North-Rhine-Westphalia (Germany), the boundaries of each port are defined, port security assessments and port security plans are carried out, and that port security officers are approved, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(3), 6, 7 and 9 of Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security;
Case C‑21/16

Euro Tyre BV — Sucursal em Portugal

v

Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Request for a preliminary ruling

from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 131 and 138 Preconditions for the exemption of an intra-Community supply — VAT Information Exchange System (VIES) — Purchaser’s failure to register — Refusal to grant the exemption — Whether permissible)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber), 9 February 2017

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Exemption of an intra-Community supply — Vendor refused an exemption on the sole ground that the purchaser is not registered in the VIES system and does come under a system of taxation on intra-Community acquisitions of goods — No sound evidence pointing to the existence of fraud and the basic conditions for the exemption fulfilled — Not permissible

(Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 131 and 138(1))

Article 131 and Article 138(1) of the Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding the tax authority of a Member State from refusing to exempt an intra-Community supply from value added tax on the sole ground that, at the time of that supply, the purchaser domiciled in the territory of the Member State of destination exemption of an intra-Community supply who was in possession of a valid identification number for the purposes of value added tax in that Member State is neither registered in the VIES System nor comes under a system of taxation on intra-Community acquisitions of goods, where there is no sound evidence pointing to the existence of fraud and it is established that the basic conditions of the exemption are fulfilled. In that case, Article 138(1) of that directive, interpreted in the light of the principle of proportionality, also precludes such refusal where the vendor was aware of the circumstances of the situation of the purchaser with regard to the application of value added tax and was convinced that subsequently the purchaser would be registered as an intra-Community operator with retroactive effect.

Accordingly, neither the acquisition by the purchaser of a VAT identification number valid for the purpose of carrying out intra-Community transactions nor the inclusion of that number in the VIES system constitute substantive conditions for exemption from VAT of an intra-Community supply. Those are merely formal requirements which cannot undermine the vendor’s entitlement to exemption from VAT where the substantive conditions for an intra-Community supply are satisfied (see, by analogy, judgments of 6 September 2012, Mecsek-Gabona, C‑273/11, EU:C:2012:547, paragraph 60 ; of 27 September 2012, VSTR, C‑587/10, EU:C:2012:592, paragraph 51; and of 20 October 2016, Plöckl, C‑24/15, EU:C:2016:791, paragraph 40).

(see paras 32, 44, and operative part)
Article 67(2) TFEU and Articles 20 and 21 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which confers on the police authorities of the Member State in question the power to check the identity of any person, within an area of 30 kilometres from that Member State’s land border with other States parties to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed at Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990, with a view to preventing or terminating unlawful entry into or residence in the territory of that Member State or preventing certain criminal offences which undermine the security of the border, irrespective of the behaviour of the person concerned and of the existence of specific circumstances, unless that legislation lays down the necessary framework for that power ensuring that the practical exercise of it cannot have an effect equivalent to that of border checks, which is for the referring court to verify.

In the absence of such a framework in the national legislation, it cannot be considered that those checks, first, are selective and thus not systematic like border checks and, second, are police measures applied on the basis of spot-checks, as required by Article 21(a)(iii) and (iv) of Regulation No 562/2006. Last, the framework required must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the need for the checks and the checks actually authorised themselves to be checked (judgment of 19 July 2012, Adil, C‑278/12 PPU, EU:C:2012:508, paragraph 76).

(see paras 41, 62, 63, operative part 1)
5.

Agriculture—Common agricultural policy—EAGGF financing—Support for rural development—Special measures applicable to Member States which joined the EU in 2004—Support for semi-subsistence forms subject to restructuring—Obligation of the beneficiaries to undertake to devote part of the aid granted to restructuring operations (Council Regulation No 1257/1999, Art. 33b) (see paras 55, 62, 63)