ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as applying to a situation in which a payment, challenged by an insolvency administrator, of a sum of money attached before the opening of the insolvency proceedings was made only after the opening of those proceedings.

The exception to the general rule that the law applicable to insolvency proceedings and their effects is to be the lex fori concursus, provided for in Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000, must be interpreted strictly, and its scope cannot go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective. To interpret that article as also applying to acts which took place after the opening of insolvency proceedings would go beyond what is necessary to protect legitimate expectations and the certainty of transactions in Member States other than that in which proceedings are opened. It must therefore be held that Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 is not, in principle, applicable to acts which take place after the opening of insolvency proceedings.

However, notwithstanding that conclusion, that payment took place on the basis of a right in rem and, since that right was established before the opening of the insolvency proceedings against the debtor company, that payment could benefit, according in particular to Article 5(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000, from special protection. However, in order to enable a creditor to assert his right in rem effectively, that creditor must be able to exercise that right after the opening of the insolvency proceedings, in principle under the lex causae.

(see paras 34-37, 40, 43, operative part 1)
Case C‑422/13

Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein

v

Uta Wree

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht)

‛References for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Single payment scheme — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 34(2)(a) — Concept of ‘area eligible for aid’ — Concept of ‘agricultural area’ — Area forming restored cover layer of a landfill site in after-care — Use for agricultural activities — Lawfulness’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 2 July 2015

Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Single payment scheme — Concept of ‘area eligible for aid’ — Concept of ‘agricultural area’ — Area forming restored cover layer of a landfill site in after-care, actually used for permanent pasture — Included — Verification a matter for the national court

(Council Regulation No 73/2009, Art. 34(2)(a))

Article 34(2)(a) of Regulation No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations No 1290/2005, No 247/2006 and No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation No 1782/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that an area which forms the cover layer of a landfill site in after-care constitutes an agricultural area within the meaning of that provision when it is actually used for permanent pasture, which it is for the referring court to verify.

(see paras 39, 45, operative part)

Case C‑422/13

Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein

v

Uta Wree

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht)

‛References for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Single payment scheme — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 34(2)(a) — Concept of ‘area eligible for aid’ — Concept of ‘agricultural area’ — Area forming restored cover layer of a landfill site in after-care — Use for agricultural activities — Lawfulness’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 2 July 2015

Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Single payment scheme — Concept of ‘area eligible for aid’ — Concept of ‘agricultural area’ — Area forming restored cover layer of a landfill site in after-care, actually used for permanent pasture — Included — Verification a matter for the national court

(Council Regulation No 73/2009, Art. 34(2)(a))

Article 34(2)(a) of Regulation No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations No 1290/2005, No 247/2006 and No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation No 1782/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that an area which forms the cover layer of a landfill site in after-care constitutes an agricultural area within the meaning of that provision when it is actually used for permanent pasture, which it is for the referring court to verify.

(see paras 39, 45, operative part)
Articles 4(2) and 21(5) of Directive 2003/96 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule which provides for the levying of a tax on the thermal power of nuclear reactors, in so far as such a tax does not come within the scope of that directive.

First of all, since the thermal power of a nuclear reactor is not on the exhaustive list of energy products drawn up by Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/96, it cannot be considered to be an ‘energy product’ for the purposes of that directive.

Secondly, the thermal power of a nuclear reactor does not come within the definition of ‘electricity’ for the purposes of Directive 2003/96, because there is no link between, on the one hand, the chargeable event for the tax on the thermal power of nuclear reactors and, on the other, the amount of electricity actually generated by that reactor, given that that tax consists in the levying of a fixed monthly amount calculated according to a theoretical value, being the quantity of megawatts of maximum thermal power fixed for each nuclear reactor by the authorisation, issued by the national authorities, to own and operate that nuclear reactor and that it is, moreover, characterised by the fact that the holder of the authorisation remains liable for the tax on the thermal power even when it is not being operated.

Thirdly, such a tax cannot be regarded as having been calculated directly or indirectly on the quantity of energy products and electricity actually generated at the time of release for consumption within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/96. Similarly, nor can there be said to be a direct and inseverable link between the chargeable event for the tax and the consumption of electricity generated by a given nuclear reactor.

(see paras 26, 27, 31-35, 37, operative part 1)
The Commission cannot be regarded as having the right, by virtue of its power of external representation under Article 17(1) TEU, to sign a non-binding agreement resulting from negotiations conducted with a third country. The decision concerning the signing of an agreement with a third country covering an area for which the Union is competent — irrespective of whether or not that agreement is binding — requires an assessment to be made, in compliance with strategic guidelines laid down by the European Council and the principles and objectives of the Union’s external action laid down in Article 21(1) and (2) TEU, of the Union’s interests in the context of its relations with the third country concerned, and the divergent interests arising in those relations to be reconciled. Therefore, a decision concerning the signature of a non-binding agreement is one of the measures by which the Union’s policy is made and its external action planned for the purpose of the second sentence of Article 16(1) and the third subparagraph of Article 16(6) TEU.

Moreover, the signature of a non-binding agreement entails the assessment by the Union of whether the agreement still reflects its interest, as defined by the Council in particular in the decision to open negotiations on the conclusion of the agreement. That assessment requires, inter alia, verification of the actual content of the non-binding agreement resulting from negotiations with a third country and that content cannot be determined in advance or predicted when the decision to start such negotiations is made. Thus, the mere fact that the content of a non-binding agreement negotiated by the Commission with a third country corresponds to the negotiating mandate given by the Council is not sufficient to confer on the Commission the power to sign such a non-binding measure without the Council’s prior approval, on the basis that the approval is already covered by a position previously established by the Council.

(see paras 38-40, 42, 43)
The fact that, owing to the application of the ceiling of 10% of turnover referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, certain factors such as the gravity and duration of the infringement are not actually reflected in the amount of the fine imposed is merely a consequence of the application of that upper limit to the final amount.

The limit is one which is uniformly applicable to all undertakings and arrived at according to the size of each of them, and seeks to ensure that the fines are not excessive or disproportionate. That upper limit thus has a distinct and autonomous objective by comparison with the criteria of gravity and duration of the infringement.

(see paras 27, 29)
10

Article 3(3) of that Annex is worded as follows: ‘“Linked enterprises” are enterprises which have any of the following relationships with each other: (a) an enterprise has a majority of the shareholders’ or members’ voting rights in another enterprise; (b) an enterprise has the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of another enterprise; (c) an enterprise has the right to exercise a dominant influence over another enterprise pursuant to a contract entered into with that enterprise or to a provision in its memorandum or articles of association; (d) an enterprise, which is a shareholder in or member of another enterprise, controls alone, pursuant to an agreement with other shareholders in or members of that enterprise, a majority of shareholders’ or members’ voting rights in that enterprise. There is a presumption that no dominant influence exists if the investors listed in the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 are not involving themselves directly or indirectly in the management of the enterprise in question, without prejudice to their rights as stakeholders. Enterprises having any of the relationships described in the first subparagraph through one or more other enterprises, or any one of the investors mentioned in paragraph 2, are also considered to be linked. Enterprises which have one or other of such relationships through a natural person or group of natural persons acting jointly are also considered linked enterprises if they engage in their activity or in part of their activity in the same relevant market or in adjacent markets. An “adjacent market” is considered to be the market for a product or service situated directly upstream or downstream of the relevant market.’
16

Article 70 of the 1996 Decree provides: ‘Until such time as the landfill plan referred to in Article 24(2) has entered into force, applications for permits within the meaning of Article 11 in order to set up and operate landfills and applications for building permits as provided for in Article 41(1) of the Wallonia Town and Country Planning and Heritage Code which were held to be admissible before this Decree was adopted by Parliament may result in a permit being granted in industrial, agricultural and extraction zones as defined in Articles 172, 176 and 182 of that code. By derogation from Article 24(2), applications relating to landfills other than those reserved for the exclusive use of the producer of the waste, previously authorised, existing before the entry into force of the landfill plan referred to in Article 24(2) or which were granted authorisation or a permit under the first paragraph of the present article may, whatever the date of the application, result in the grant of an environmental licence, a single permit or planning permission, in the areas of the sectoral plan where those landfills have previously been authorised, to permit, on the plots of land covered by that licence or permit, the operation to be prolonged, the alteration of the operating conditions, including those relating to the permitted volume, or alteration of the ground of relief beyond that originally authorised. The present paragraph applies only to authorised landfills referred to in Title VII, Chapter 1, of the landfill plan adopted on 1 April 1999. …’
16

Under Article 81 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for in that regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 65, and corrigendum OJ 2013 L 246, p. 3): ‘1. Without prejudice of Article 137 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, where, after payment entitlements have been allocated to farmers in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 or Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 it is established that certain payment entitlements have been allocated unduly, the farmer concerned shall give up the unduly allocated entitlements to the national reserve referred to in Article 41 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. … 2. Without prejudice of Article 137 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, where, after payment entitlements have been allocated to farmers in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 or Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 it is established that the value of the payment entitlements is too high, that value shall be adjusted accordingly. That adjustment shall also be carried out in respect of payment entitlements which have, meanwhile, been transferred to other farmers. The value of the reduction shall be allocated to the national reserve referred to in Article 41 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. The payment entitlements shall be deemed as having been allocated ab initio at the value resulting from the adjustment. 3. Where, for the purpose of the application of paragraphs 1 and 2 it is established that the number of the entitlements allocated to a farmer … is incorrect, and where the undue allocation has no impact on the total value of the entitlements the farmer received, the Member State shall recalculate the payment entitlements and where appropriate correct the type of the entitlements allocated to the farmer. However, this shall not apply if the errors could reasonably have been detected by the farmers.’
4

Article 21(1) of that decree provided, with regard to the production of livestock manure in the Flanders Region: ‘There shall be a basic levy BH1 payable on the production of livestock manure to the Mestbank [an internal division of the VLM] by all producers in the undertaking whose production of livestock manure, MPp, has exceeded, during the preceding calendar year, 300 kg of phosphorous pentoxide. The amount of that basic levy BH1 is calculated on the basis of the following formula: BH1 = (MPp x Xdmp) + (MPBn x Xdmn) where: — MPp = the gross production of livestock manure, expressed in kg of P2O5; — MPBn = the gross production of livestock manure, expressed in kg of N; — Xdmp = the rate of taxation on the production of livestock manure in EUR/kg of P2O5; — Xdmn = the rate of taxation on the production of livestock manure in EUR/kg of N. For the application of those provisions, the gross production of livestock manure MPBn, expressed in kg of N, means the product of the average livestock in the holding and/or farm during the preceding calendar year and the corresponding gross excretion quantities per animal, expressed in kg of N. The average livestock for each of the species concerned is determined by dividing by 12 the sum of the monthly registered animal quotas. The gross excretion quantities per animal, expressed in kg of N, are set on a lump-sum or true basis, by application of the excretion record, such as referred to in Article 20a, in accordance with Article 5. The abovementioned rates of taxation are determined as follows: — Xdmp = 0.0111 EUR/kg of P2O5; — Xdmn = 0.0111 EUR/kg of N.’
3

Article 22 of Regulation No 1408/71, entitled ‘Stay outside the competent State — Return to or transfer of residence to another Member State during sickness or maternity — Need to go to another Member State in order to receive appropriate treatment’, provides: ‘1. An employed or self-employed person who satisfies the conditions of the legislation of the competent State for entitlement to benefits, taking account where appropriate of the provisions of Article 18, and: ... (c) who is authorised by the competent institution to go to the territory of another Member State to receive there the treatment appropriate to his condition, shall be entitled: (i) to benefits in kind provided on behalf of the competent institution by the institution of the place of stay … in accordance with the provisions of the legislation which it administers, as though he were insured with it; the length of the period during which benefits are provided shall be governed, however, by the legislation of the competent State; … 2. … The authorisation required under paragraph 1(c) may not be refused where the treatment in question is among the benefits provided for by the legislation of the Member State on whose territory the person concerned resided and where he cannot be given such treatment within the time normally necessary for obtaining the treatment in question in the Member State of residence taking account of his current state of health and the probable course of the disease. 3. Paragraphs 1 … and 2 shall apply by analogy to members of the family of an employed or self-employed person. …’
3

The first to eighth recitals in the preamble to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1992 L 136, p. 1) state as follows: ‘… it is necessary to amend Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 …, as updated by Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 …, as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2195/91 …; … it is necessary to extend the definition of “member of the family” in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to conform with the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the interpretation of that expression; … it is also necessary to take account of the case-law of the Court of Justice stating that certain benefits provided under national laws may fall simultaneously within the categories of both social security and social assistance because of the class of persons to whom such laws apply, their objectives and their manner of application; … the Court of Justice has stated that, in some of its features, legislation under which such benefits are granted is akin to social assistance in that need is an essential criterion in its implementation and the conditions of entitlement are not based upon the aggregation of periods of employment or contributions, whilst in other features it is close to social security to the extent that there is an absence of discretion in the manner in which such benefits as are provided thereunder are awarded and in that it confers a legally defined position upon beneficiaries; … Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 excludes from its scope, by virtue of Article 4(4) thereof, social assistance schemes; … the conditions referred to and their methods of application are such that a system of coordination which differs from that currently provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and which takes account of the special characteristics of the benefits concerned should be included in that Regulation in order to protect the interests of migrant workers in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Treaty; … such benefits should be granted, in respect of persons falling within the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, solely in accordance with the legislation of the country of residence of the person concerned or of the members of his or her family, with such aggregation of periods of residence completed in any other Member State as is necessary and without discrimination on grounds of nationality; … it is necessary nevertheless to ensure that the existing system of coordination in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 continues to apply to benefits which either do not fall within the special category of benefits referred to or are not expressly included in an Annex to that Regulation; … a new Annex is needed for this purpose’.
9

The first sentence of Paragraph 2(1) and (2) of the AltTZG provides: ‘(1) Benefits shall be granted for workers who 1. have reached the age of 55, 2. after 14 February 1996, on the basis of an agreement with their employer which must at least cover the period up to the date on which an old-age pension can be claimed, have reduced their working time to half the weekly time worked up until then, and are employed while affiliated with the compulsory unemployment insurance within the meaning of Book III of the SGB (part-time work for older employees) and 3. over the final five years prior to the part-time work for older employees, were for at least 1080 calendar days in employment subject to compulsory unemployment insurance within the meaning of Book III of the SGB. ... (2) If the agreement on part-time work for older employees provides for different weekly working periods or a different allocation of weekly working time, the condition under paragraph 1(2) shall also be satisfied where: 1. the weekly time worked on average over a period of up to three years, or, in the case of rules set out in a collective agreement, or in a works agreement, if a collective agreement provides for that possibility, or in rules for churches and public religious institutions, over a period of up to six years, does not exceed half the weekly time worked up until then, and where the worker is employed while affiliated with the compulsory unemployment insurance within the meaning of Book III of the SGB and 2. the pay under the scheme of part-time work for older employees, together with the increase provided for under Paragraph 3(1)(1)(a) [of the AltTZG], continues to be paid.’
7

Article 39 of the Additional Protocol is worded as follows: ‘1. Before the end of the first year after the entry into force of this Protocol the Council of Association shall adopt social security measures for workers of Turkish nationality moving within the Community and for their families residing in the Community. 2. These provisions must enable workers of Turkish nationality, in accordance with arrangements to be laid down, to aggregate periods of insurance or employment completed in individual Member States in respect of old-age pensions, death benefits and invalidity pensions, and also as regards the provision of health services for workers and their families residing in the Community. These measures shall create no obligation on Member States to take into account periods completed in Turkey. 3. The abovementioned measures must ensure that family allowances are paid if a worker’s family resides in the Community. 4. It must be possible to transfer to Turkey old-age pensions, death benefits and invalidity pensions obtained under the measures adopted pursuant to paragraph 2. 5. The measures provided for in this Article shall not affect the rights and obligations arising from bilateral agreements between Turkey and Member States of the Community, in so far as these agreements provide more favourable arrangements for Turkish nationals.’