ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
25

Paragraph 6 of the Gesetz über die Besteuerung bei Auslandsbeziehungen (Law on foreign transaction tax), of 8 September 1972 (BGBl. 1972 I, p. 1713), in the version applicable to the main proceedings (‘the AStG’), provides: ‘1. In the case of a natural person who has been subject to unlimited tax liability for at least ten years in total under Paragraph 1(1) of the [EStG] and where that person’s unlimited liability ends with the transfer of his domicile or habitual residence, Paragraph 17 of the [EStG] shall be applicable to the shares referred to in the first sentence of Paragraph 17(1) of the [EStG] when the unlimited liability comes to an end, including in the absence of disposal, if the requirements of that provision concerning those shares are also met at that time. … 4. Subject to [Paragraph 6](5), the income tax due under [Paragraph 6](1) must, upon request, be deferred and paid in instalments at regular intervals over a maximum period of five years from the due date of first payment, subject to the provision of a bank guarantee, in so far as immediate recovery would have consequences which would be difficult for the taxpayer to bear. The deferral shall end if, during the deferral period, the shares are sold or covertly transferred to a company, as provided for in Paragraph 17(1) of the [EStG], or if one of the situations referred to in Paragraph 17(4) of the [EStG] arises … 5. If the taxpayer in the situation referred to in the first sentence of [Paragraph 6](1) is a national of a Member State … or of another State to which the Agreement on the European Economic Area [of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3; ‘the EEA Agreement’)] applies, and, after the end of the unlimited tax liability, he is subject to tax in one of those States (host State) comparable to German income tax liability, the tax payable under [Paragraph 6](1) shall be deferred without interest and without the provision of a bank guarantee. This measure is subject to the condition that administrative support and mutual assistance in the recovery of tax between the Federal Republic of Germany and that State are guaranteed. … The deferral shall end in the following cases: 1) if the taxpayer or his legal successor within the meaning of the third sentence of subparagraph 1, sells the shares or covertly transfers them to a company, in accordance with the first sentence of Article 17(1) of the [EStG], or if one of the situations referred to in Paragraph 17(4) of the [EStG] arises; 2) if the shares are transferred to a person not subject to unlimited tax liability, who is not subject to tax comparable to unlimited German income tax liability in a Member State … or in a State which is party to the EEA agreement; 3) if the shares are subject to a levy or another transaction which, under national law, means that the going-concern value or market value are taken into account; 4) if the taxpayer or his legal successor within the meaning of the third sentence of subparagraph 1, is no longer subject to tax liability within the meaning of the first sentence because he has transferred his domicile or habitual residence.’
7

Article 5(2) and (3) of Decreto n. 226 del ministro dello sviluppo economico e del ministre per i rapporti con le regioni e la coesione territoriale recante regolamento per i criteri di gara e per la valutazione dell’offerta per l’affidamento del servizio della distribuzione del gas naturale, in attuazione dell’articolo 46bis del decreto legge 1 ottobre 2007 n. 159, convertito in legge, con modificazioni, dalla legge 29 novembre 2007, n. 222 (Decree No 226 of the Minister for Economic Development and Minister for Relations with the Regions and Territorial Cohesion, governing the tender criteria and the evaluation of tenders with regard to the award of public service distribution of natural gas, implementing Article 46bis of the Decree Law No 159 of 1 October 2007, converted into law, with amendments, by Law No 222 of 29 November 2007) of 12 November 2011 (Ordinary Supplement to the GURI No 22 of 27 January 2012), in its original version, states: ‘2. The value of the reimbursement paid to holders of concessions coming to an end, for which no expiry date has been set, or for which a natural expiry date has been set that is after the end date of the service specified in the new invitation to tender, shall be calculated as stipulated in the agreements or contracts, in accordance with the provisions of Article 15(5) of Legislative Decree No 164 of 23 May 2000, as amended, particularly in cases where the contract ends before the natural expiry date. 3. When the method for calculating the amount of the reimbursement payable to the holders referred to in paragraph 2 cannot be determined from the contract documents, including the case in which those documents state in a general manner that the reimbursement value should be at market prices, the criteria referred to in Article 24(4)(a) and (b) of Royal Decree No 2578 of 15 October 1925 shall be applied in accordance with the terms specified in paragraphs 5 to 13, limited to the portion of the plant owned by the operator for which, on the natural expiry of the concession, it is not provided that it will devolve free of charge to the local authority granting the concession.’
12

Recitals 13, 16, 25, 26, 56 and 59 of Directive 2008/6 state: ‘(13) The prospective study shows that the reserved area should no longer be the preferred solution for the financing of the universal service. This assessment takes into account the interest of the Community and its Member States in the accomplishment of the internal market and its potential for delivering growth and employment, as well as ensuring the availability of an efficient service of general economic interest for all users. It is therefore appropriate to confirm the final date for the accomplishment of the internal market for postal services. … (16) Complete market-opening will help to expand the overall size of the postal markets. It will further contribute to maintaining sustainable and quality employment within universal service providers as well as facilitate the creation of new jobs in other operators, new entrants and associated economic sectors. … … (25) In the light of the studies carried out and with a view to unlocking the full potential of the internal market for postal services, it is appropriate to end the use of the reserved area and special rights as a means of ensuring that the universal service is financed. (26) The external financing of the residual net costs of the universal service may still be necessary for some Member States. It is therefore appropriate to explicitly clarify the alternatives available in order to ensure the financing of the universal service, to the extent that this is needed and is adequately justified, while leaving Member States the choice of the financing mechanisms to be used. … Member States may use other means of financing permitted by Community law, such as deciding, where and if necessary, that the profits accruing from other activities of the universal service provider(s) outside the scope of the universal service are to be assigned, in whole or in part, to the financing of the net costs of the universal service, as long as this is in line with the [EC] Treaty. … … (56) Since the objectives of this Directive, namely achieving an internal market of Community postal services, ensuring a common level of universal services for all users and setting harmonised principles for the regulation of postal services, cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects, be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the [EC] Treaty. … … (59) This Directive is without prejudice to the application of the [EC] Treaty rules on competition and on the freedom to provide services. In so far as mechanisms for the financing of the universal service involve aid granted by a Member State or through state aid resources in any form whatsoever within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the [EC] Treaty, this Directive is without prejudice to Member States’ obligation to respect the [EC] Treaty rules on State aid.’
12

The Overleveringswet (Law on surrender) of 29 April 2004 (Stb. 2004, No 195, ‘the OLW’), which transposes into Netherlands law Framework Decision 2002/584, provides in Article 6: ‘1. The surrender of a Netherlands national may be permitted provided that he is sought for the purposes of a criminal investigation against him and that, in the view of the executing judicial authority, it is guaranteed that, if he receives an unconditional custodial sentence in the issuing Member State in relation to acts for which surrender may be permitted, he may serve that sentence in the Netherlands. 2. The surrender of a Netherlands national shall not be permitted if that surrender is sought for the purposes of execution of a custodial sentence imposed on him by final judicial decision. … 4. The public prosecutor shall immediately inform our minister of … any refusal to surrender communicated with the declaration, referred to in paragraph 3, to the effect that the Kingdom of the Netherlands is willing to assume responsibility for executing the foreign judgment. 5. Paragraphs 1 to 4 shall also apply to a foreign national in possession of a residence permit of indefinite duration, in so far as he may be prosecuted in the Netherlands for the offences on which the EAW is based and in so far as he can be expected not to forfeit his right of residence in the Netherlands as a result of any sentence or measure which may be imposed on him after surrender.’
3

According to the eighth to twelfth and twentieth recitals of Directive 93/13: ‘Whereas the two Community programmes for a consumer protection and information policy … underlined the importance of safeguarding consumers in the matter of unfair terms of contract; whereas this protection ought to be provided by laws and regulations which are either harmonized at Community level or adopted directly at that level; Whereas in accordance with the principle laid down under the heading “Protection of the economic interests of the consumers”, as stated in those programmes: “acquirers of goods and services should be protected against the abuse of power by the seller or supplier, in particular against one-sided standard contracts and the unfair exclusion of essential rights in contracts”; Whereas more effective protection of the consumer can be achieved by adopting uniform rules of law in the matter of unfair terms; whereas those rules should apply to all contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers; whereas as a result inter alia contracts relating to employment, contracts relating to succession rights, contracts relating to rights under family law and contracts relating to the incorporation and organisation of companies or partnership agreements must be excluded from this Directive; Whereas the consumer must receive equal protection under contracts concluded by word of mouth and written contracts regardless, in the latter case, of whether the terms of the contract are contained in one or more documents; Whereas, however, as they now stand, national laws allow only partial harmonization to be envisaged; whereas, in particular, only contract terms which have not been individually negotiated are covered by this Directive; whereas Member States should have the option, with due regard for the Treaty, to afford consumers a higher level of protection through national provisions that are more stringent than those of this Directive; … Whereas contracts should be drafted in plain, intelligible language, the consumer should actually be given an opportunity to examine all the terms and, if in doubt, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer should prevail’.
30

When the hyperlink associated with the word ‘here’ next to the second checkbox was clicked on, the following information was displayed: ‘The cookies named ceng_cache, ceng_etag, ceng_png and gcr are small files which are stored in an assigned manner on your hard disk by the browser you use and by means of which certain information is supplied which enables more user-friendly and effective advertising. The cookies contain a specific randomly generated number (ID), which is at the same time assigned to your registration data. If you then visit the website of an advertising partner which is registered for Remintrex (to find out whether a registration exists, please consult the advertising partner’s data protection declaration), Remintrex automatically records, by virtue of an iFrame which is integrated there, that you (or the user with the stored ID) have visited the site, which product you have shown interest in and whether a transaction was entered into. Subsequently, [Planet49] can arrange, on the basis of the advertising consent given during registration for the lottery, for advertising emails to be sent to you which take account of your interests demonstrated on the advertising partner’s website. After revoking the advertising consent, you will of course not receive any more email advertising. The information communicated by these cookies is used exclusively for the purposes of advertising in which products of the advertising partner are presented. The information is collected, stored and used separately for each advertising partner. User profiles involving multiple advertising partners will not be created under any circumstances. The individual advertising partners do not receive any personal data. If you have no further interest in using the cookies, you can delete them via your browser at any time. You can find a guide in your browser’s [“help”] function. No programs can be run or viruses transmitted by means of the cookies. You of course have the option to revoke this consent at any time. You can send the revocation in writing to [Planet49] [address]. However, an email to our customer services department [email address] will also suffice.’
Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — European Union funding — Obligation on Member States to establish monitoring and control systems — Commission’s powers to carry out on-the-spot checks and inspections — Possibility to verify the expenses given several times — Inspections revealing serious shortcomings which may lead to systemic irregularities — Suspension and resumption of interim payments by the Commission — Irrelevant

(Art. 317 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1260/1999, Arts 38 and 39(1), (2)(c) and 3(b); Commission Regulation No 438/2001, Arts 4 and 10]

(see paras 45-48, 50, 65, 66, 68, 69)
1.

Agriculture — EAGF and EAFRD financing — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Financial correction — Application in the event of failures to fulfil obligations relating to the subsequent management of irregular payments — Lawfulness (Council Regulation No 1290/2005, Arts 31 to 33) (see paras 55-58, 62, 67)
1.

Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission's power of inspection — Decision ordering an inspection — Obligation to state reasons — Scope — Duty to specify the subject matter and purpose of the inspection — Duty to integrate the information received by a national authority in the context of an inquiry initiated on the basis of national law — Not included — Clear indication of the evidence suggesting an infringement — Duty to make a legal categorisation of the assumed infringements — None (Arts 102 and 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(4)) (see paras 40-50, 62)
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Fujikura v Commission

(Case C‑590/18 P) ( 1 )

Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for underground and submarine power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Determining the relative weight of the European and non-European members in the cartel — Participation of European undertakings in the cartel at several levels — Principle of equal treatment)

Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Determination of the basic amount — Determination of the value of sales — Sales carried out in direct or indirect relation to the infringement — Account taken of sales made at the worldwide level in order to reflect the relative importance of each undertaking in the infringement — Respect for the principle of equal treatment — Account taken of the differences between and the circumstances of the undertakings concerned at another stage of the calculation of the fine — Whether permissible

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 20 and 21; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02, points 13 and 18)

(see paras 39-52)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Declares that Fujikura Ltd is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

3. Declares that Viscas Corp. is to bear its own costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Appeal – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the facts or evidence have been distorted

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 49)
1.

Sets aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2018, NKT Verwaltungs and NKT v Commission (T‑447/14, not published, EU:T:2018:443) to the extent that the General Court thereby dismissed the action brought by NKT Verwaltungs GmbH and NKT A/S for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 – Power cables) in so far as that decision finds those companies liable for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, and in so far as that infringement concerns, first, conduct related to sales in countries that are not members of the European Union or the European Economic Area (EEA); second, a collective refusal to supply accessories and technical assistance to competitors not participating in the cartel at issue; and, third, as regards the period from 3 July 2002 to 21 November 2002, the allocation of underground power cable projects in the EEA;
3

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, of 23 May 1969 (United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1155, p. 331), provides, in Articles 65, 67 and 68 thereof: ‘Article 65. Procedure to be followed with respect to invalidity, termination, withdrawal from or suspension of the operation of a treaty 1. A party which, under the provisions of the present Convention, invokes either a defect in its consent to be bound by a treaty or a ground for impeaching the validity of a treaty, terminating it, withdrawing from it or suspending its operation, must notify the other parties of its claim. The notification shall indicate the measure proposed to be taken with respect to the treaty and the reasons therefor. 2. If, after the expiry of a period which, except in cases of special urgency, shall not be less than three months after the receipt of the notification, no party has raised any objection, the party making the notification may carry out in the manner provided in Article 67 the measure which it has proposed. 3. If, however, objection has been raised by any other party, the parties shall seek a solution through the means indicated in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations. ... Article 67. Instruments for declaring invalid, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty 1. The notification provided for under Article 65, paragraph 1 must be made in writing. 2. Any act declaring invalid, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty pursuant to the provisions of the treaty or of paragraphs 2 or 3 of Article 65 shall be carried out through an instrument communicated to the other parties. If the instrument is not signed by the Head of State, Head of Government or Minister for Foreign Affairs, the representative of the State communicating it may be called upon to produce full powers. Article 68. Revocation of notifications and instruments provided for in Articles 65 and 67 A notification or instrument provided for in Article 65 or 67 may be revoked at any time before it takes effect.’
8

Under Article 23 of the MiFID, entitled ‘Obligations of investment firms when appointing tied agents’: ‘1. Member States may decide to allow an investment firm to appoint tied agents for the purposes of promoting the services of the investment firm, soliciting business or receiving orders from clients or potential clients and transmitting them, placing financial instruments and providing advice in respect of such financial instruments and services offered by that investment firm. 2. Member States shall require that where an investment firm decides to appoint a tied agent it remains fully and unconditionally responsible for any action or omission on the part of the tied agent when acting on behalf of the firm. Member States shall require the investment firm to ensure that a tied agent discloses the capacity in which he is acting and the firm which he is representing when contacting or before dealing with any client or potential client. … Member States shall require the investment firms to monitor the activities of their tied agents so as to ensure that they continue to comply with this Directive when acting through tied agents. 3. Member States that decide to allow investment firms to appoint tied agents shall establish a public register. Tied agents shall be registered in the public register in the Member State where they are established. … … Member States shall ensure that tied agents are only admitted to the public register if it has been established that they are of sufficiently good repute and that they possess appropriate general, commercial and professional knowledge so as to be able to communicate accurately all relevant information regarding the proposed service to the client or potential client. … 4. Member States shall require that investment firms appointing tied agents take adequate measures in order to avoid any negative impact that the activities of the tied agent not covered by the scope of this Directive could have on the activities carried out by the tied agent on behalf of the investment firm. … 5. Member States shall require that investment firms appoint only tied agents entered in the public registers referred to in paragraph 3. 6. Member States may reinforce the requirements set out in this Article or add other requirements for tied agents registered within their jurisdiction.’