ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
22

In those circumstances, the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts decided to stay the proceedings before it and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. Is it appropriate to regard as a civil or commercial matter, within the meaning of Regulation No 44/2001, a case in which the applicant seeks compensation for damage and a declaration of the unlawfulness of the defendants’ conduct consisting in an unlawful agreement and abuse of a dominant position, and which is based on the application of legislative acts of general scope of another Member State, bearing in mind that unlawful agreements are void from the moment they are concluded, and that, on the other hand, the adoption of a rule of law is an act of the State in the sphere of public law (acta iure imperii), to which the rules of public international law relating to the immunity of a State from the jurisdiction of other States apply? 2. In the event that the reply to Question 1 is in the affirmative (the case is a civil or commercial matter, within the meaning of Regulation No 44/2001), are the compensation proceedings to be regarded as an action having as its object the validity of the decisions of the organs of companies, within the meaning of Article 22(2) of the Regulation, in which case the judgment need not be recognised, in accordance with Article 35(1) of the Regulation? 3. If the subject-matter of the compensation proceedings falls within the scope of Article 22(2) of the Regulation (exclusive jurisdiction), is the court of the State in which recognition is sought required to verify the presence of the circumstances listed in Article 35(1) of the Regulation in relation to the recognition of a judgment adopting provisional and protective measures? 4. May the public-policy clause contained in Article 34(1) of the Regulation be interpreted as meaning that recognition of a judgment adopting provisional and protective measures is contrary to the public policy of a Member State if, first, the principal ground for the adoption of the provisional and protective measures is the considerable size of the amount requested without a well-founded and substantiated calculation having been made and, second, if the recognition and enforcement of that judgment may cause the defendants damage for which the applicant, a company which is in liquidation, will not be able to provide compensation in the event that the claim for compensation is dismissed, which might affect the economic interests of the State in which recognition is sought, and thereby jeopardise the security of the State, in view of the fact that the Republic of Latvia holds 100% of the shares in Starptautiskā Lidosta Rīga and 52.6% of the shares in Air Baltic?’
22

Article 12(1), (4) and (8) of that regulation provided: ‘1. Starting from the calendar year preceding the first year of application of the single payment scheme Member States may proceed to the identification of the eligible farmers referred to in Article 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, to the provisional establishment of the amounts and the number of hectares referred to respectively in Article 34(1)(a) and (b) of that Regulation and to a preliminary verification of the conditions referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article. ... 4. The definitive establishment of payment entitlements to be allocated in the first year of application of the single payment scheme shall be subject to the application under the single payment scheme in accordance with Article 34(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. No definitive transfer of payment entitlements shall be possible before the definitive establishment of payment entitlements. ... Farmers may introduce, under reserve of the definitive establishment, applications under the single payment [scheme] on the basis of provisional payment entitlements established by the Member States or acquired via the contractual clause referred to in Articles 17 or 27. … 8. Except for the purpose of establishing payment entitlements from the national reserve referred to in Articles 6, 7 and 18 to 23a, and without prejudice to paragraphs 5 and 6 of this Article, no parcel needs to be declared for the purpose of the establishment of the payment entitlements. The declaration of parcels referred to in Article 44(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 shall apply for the purpose of the application for payment of the payment entitlements under the single payment scheme.’
67

In the light of all the foregoing considerations, it is appropriate to order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the judgment in Commission v Greece (EU:C:2005:592) has been complied with, in the event that the failure to fulfil obligations established in paragraph 30 above persists until that day, a six-monthly penalty payment to be calculated, as regards the first six-month period following delivery of the present judgment, at the end of that period, on the basis of an initial amount set at EUR 14 520 000, from which the sum of EUR 40 000 is to be deducted in respect of each uncontrolled waste disposal site, covered by the infringement established, that has by then been closed down or cleaned up since 13 May 2014, and the sum of EUR 80 000 is to be deducted in respect of each such site that has by then been both closed down and cleaned up. The penalty payment due in respect of every six-month period thereafter is to be calculated, at the end of each such period, on the basis of the amount of the penalty payment set for the preceding six-month period, from which the same deductions are to be made in respect of the closing down and/or cleaning up of sites, covered by the finding of a failure to fulfil obligations, effected during the six-month period in question.
3

The first, second, sixth, seventh and ninth recitals in the preamble to Directive 85/374 are worded as follows: ‘Whereas approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the liability of the producer for damage caused by the defectiveness of his products is necessary because the existing divergences may … entail a differing degree of protection of the consumer against damage caused by a defective product to his health or property; Whereas liability without fault on the part of the producer is the sole means of adequately solving the problem, peculiar to our age of increasing technicality, of a fair apportionment of the risks inherent in modern technological production; ... Whereas, to protect the physical well-being and property of the consumer, the defectiveness of the product should be determined by reference not to its fitness for use but to the lack of the safety which the public at large is entitled to expect; whereas the safety is assessed by excluding any misuse of the product not reasonable under the circumstances; Whereas a fair apportionment of risk between the injured person and the producer implies that the producer should be able to free himself from liability if he furnishes proof as to the existence of certain exonerating circumstances; ... Whereas the protection of the consumer requires compensation for death and personal injury as well as compensation for damage to property …’
12

According to the Constitution, the law applicable to the profession of architect in Germany falls within the legislative competence of the Länder. Paragraph 4 of the Law on the Bavarian Chamber of Architects and the Bavarian Chamber of Building Engineers (Gesetzes über die Bayerische Architektenkammer und die Bayerische Ingenieurekammer-Bau) of 9 May 2007 (GVBl, p. 308, ‘the BauKaG’), provides: ‘… (2) Any person who: 1. has a place of residence, place of business or main professional employment in Bavaria, 2. has passed the leaving examination in a course (a) with at least four years’ regular length of study in the tasks listed in Paragraph 3(1) in the field of architecture (structural engineering), or (b) with at least three years’ regular length of study in the tasks listed in Paragraph 3(2) and (3) in the fields of interior or landscape architecture at a German university, at a German public or officially recognised school for engineers (Akademie) or at a German educational establishment equivalent to these, and 3. has completed at least two years’ post-qualification practical experience in the relevant field shall be registered in the roll of architects. In determining the required period of practical experience, advanced and further vocational education programmes of the Order of Architects in the tasks of technical and economic planning and construction law shall be taken into account. … (5) The requirements under subparagraph 2, No 2(a) and No 3, above are also satisfied where a national of a Member State of the European Union or of a State Party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area does not, for specific and exceptional reasons within the meaning of Article 10(b), (c), (d) and (g) of [Directive 2005/36] fulfil the requirements for recognition of his formal qualifications on the basis of coordination of minimum training conditions within the meaning of [Directive 2005/36], if moreover the requirements of Article 13 of [Directive 2005/36] are satisfied; in that respect training courses are treated equally for the purposes of Article 12 of [Directive 2005/36] … …’
33

In that regard, it should be added that, even assuming that such non-deductibility might be likely to disadvantage a company having invested in ‘holdings for business purposes’ in a company established in another Member State by the fact of its exposure to currency losses when, as in the case in the main proceedings, that investment is made in shares denominated in a currency other than that of the host Member State, it follows from the Member States’ competence in tax matters that the freedom of companies to choose between different Member States of establishment by no means implies that the latter are required to adapt their own tax systems to the different taxation systems of other Member States so as to ensure that a company that has chosen to establish itself in one Member State is taxed at national level in the same way as a company having chosen to establish itself in another Member State, it being the case that that choice can, in the circumstances, be more or less advantageous or disadvantageous for that company (see, to that effect, judgments in Deutsche Shell, C‑293/06, EU:C:2008:129, paragraph 43, and Krankenheim Ruhesitz am Wannsee-Seniorenheimstatt, C‑157/07, EU:C:2008:588, paragraph 50).
Directive 1999/70 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP and the Framework Agreement are applicable to all workers providing remunerated services in the context of a fixed-term employment relationship linking them to their employer. Under Clause 2(1) of the Framework Agreement, that agreement applies to fixed-term workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship as defined in law, collective agreements or practice in each Member State.

In accordance with the definitions laid down in Clause 3 of that agreement, ‘fixed-term worker’ means ‘a person having an employment contract or relationship entered into directly between an employer and a worker where the end of the employment contract or relationship is determined by objective conditions such as reaching a specific date, completing a specific task, or the occurrence of a specific event’.

A contract such as the ‘employment contract of indefinite duration to support entrepreneurs’ provided for under the national law and characterised by the fact that it is concluded for an indefinite duration and is governed by statutory provisions and by collective agreements applicable to contracts of indefinite duration, with the sole exception of the duration of the probationary period, is not a fixed-term contract falling within the scope of Directive 1999/70. A probationary period essentially makes it possible for a worker’s aptitude and skills to be checked, whilst a fixed-term employment contract is used if the end of the employment contract or relationship is determined by objective conditions.

(see paras 31-34, 36, 38)
As regards a reference for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Regulation No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation No 1347/2000, the Court may decide that it should be dealt with under the urgent procedure provided for in Article 107 of its Rules of Procedure, where the case concerns a three-year-old child who has been separated from his father for more than a year. The continuation of the separation, an additional feature of which is the significant distance between where the father resides and where the child is living, could seriously harm the child’s future relationship with his father.

Article 11(7) and (8) of Regulation No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as not precluding, as a general rule, a Member State from allocating to a specialised court the jurisdiction to examine questions of return or custody with respect to a child in the context of the procedure set out in those provisions, even where proceedings on the substance of parental responsibility with respect to the child have already, separately, been brought before a court or tribunal.

The determination of the national court which has jurisdiction to examine questions of return or custody with respect to a child in the context of the procedure set out in Article 11(6) to (8) of that regulation is a matter of choice by the Member States. The fact that a Member State allocates to a specialised court that jurisdiction cannot, as such, impair the effectiveness of that regulation.

However, it must be ensured that such an allocation of jurisdiction is compatible with the child’s fundamental rights as stated in Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, in particular, with the objective that procedures should be expeditious. As regards the objective of expedition, when applying the relevant provisions of domestic law, the national court called on to interpret them is bound to do so with due regard to EU law and in particular the Regulation.

(see paras 49, 51, 54, operative part)
Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that agreements to share clients, such as those concluded between obligatory private pensions funds, constitute agreements with an anti-competitive object, the number of clients affected by such an agreement being irrelevant for the purpose of assessing the requirement relating to the restriction of competition within the internal market.

That is the case, in particular, where:

— first, as regards the terms of such agreements, the participating members have colluded on the basis that an indeterminate number of persons concerned, that is, persons who have signed two different private pension fund affiliation applications (duplications), is to be shared on an equal basis between the private pension funds participating in that collusive conduct;

— second, as regards the objective pursued by the pension funds concerned, the purpose of those agreements is to affiliate the persons concerned to a limited group of operators, contrary to the statutory rules applicable, and thus to the detriment of other companies operating in the economic sector concerned. The purpose of those agreement is, therefore, to strengthen the position, on the market concerned, of each of those private pension funds by comparison with that of their competitors not participating in the collusive conduct in question and they thus pursue an objective that is clearly at odds with the proper functioning of normal competition;

— third, as a result of their collusion, the private pension funds concerned have deliberately circumvented statutory rules which provide for duplications to be affiliated, following intervention by the competent national authorities, and to be allocated on a random basis.

The number of persons actually affected by the agreements to share clients is, in such circumstances, irrelevant, given that a finding that an agreement to share clients has an anti-competitive object — in particular a finding that the agreement may have a negative impact on the market — does not depend on the actual number of clients who are in fact shared out but simply on the terms and the objective aims of the agreement, considered in the light of the economic and legal context in which the agreement was concluded.

(see paras 35, 37-39, 44, 54-56, operative part)
Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as precluding a national law or practice that does not take into account, in the calculation provided for by that provision of the number of workers employed, a member of the board of directors of a capital company who performs his duties under the direction and subject to the supervision of another body of that company and who receives remuneration in return for the performance of his duties and does not himself own any shares in the company.

In that regard, the fact that a person is a member of the board of directors of a capital company is not enough in itself to rule out the possibility that that person is in a relationship of subordination to that company. It is necessary to consider the circumstances in which the board member was recruited; the nature of the duties entrusted to that person; the context in which those duties were performed; the scope of the person’s powers and the extent to which he or she was supervised within the company; and the circumstances under which the person could be removed. Even if such a board member of a capital company enjoys a degree of latitude in the performance of his duties that exceeds, in particular, that of a worker within the meaning of the national law, who may be directed by the employer as to the specific tasks that he must complete and the manner in which they must be carried out, the fact remains that the board member is in a relationship of subordination vis-à-vis that company.

Furthermore, that interpretation is also borne out by the objective of Directive 98/59 which is, as is apparent from recital 2 in the preamble thereto, inter alia, to afford greater protection to workers in the event of collective redundancies. In accordance with that objective, a narrow definition cannot be given to the concepts that define the scope of that directive, including the concept of ‘worker’ in Article 1(1)(a) of the directive.

Finally, it must be observed that a national law or practice which does not take into account the board members of a capital company in the calculation provided for in Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59 of the number of workers employed, is liable not only to affect the protection afforded by that directive to those members, but, above all, to deprive all the workers employed by certain establishments, normally employing more than 20 workers, of the rights which they derive from that directive and thus undermines its effectiveness.

(see paras 38, 41, 44, 47, 48, operative part 1)
Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding rules of a Member State that govern a tax integration regime under which a tax-integrated parent company is entitled to neutralisation as regards the add-back of a proportion of costs and expenses, fixed at 5% of the net amount of the dividends received by it from tax-integrated resident companies, when such neutralisation is refused to it under those rules as regards the dividends distributed to it from subsidiaries located in another Member State, which, had they been resident, would have been eligible in practice, if they so elected.

Unlike cases in which the residence condition as a condition of access to a tax integration scheme is justified taking into account the fact that such a scheme allows losses to be transferred within the tax-integrated group, in the case of tax advantages other than the transfer of losses within the tax-integrated group, such a difference in treatment cannot be justified by the need to safeguard the balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between the Member States. That difference in treatment concerns only incoming dividends, received by resident parent companies, so that what is concerned is the fiscal sovereignty of one and the same Member State.

Furthermore, in so far as it is not possible to identify any direct link between that advantage and a tax disadvantage resulting from the neutralisation of intra-group transactions, such an advantage also cannot be justified by the need to safeguard the cohesion of the tax system of the Member State concerned. Even if the neutralisation of the add-back of the proportion of costs and expenses results from the fact that the group comprising the parent company and its subsidiaries is treated in the same way as a single undertaking with a number of establishments, that neutralisation does not entail any tax disadvantage for the parent company at the head of the tax-integrated group; on the contrary, it confers on it that tax advantage.

(see paras 27-29, 34-36, 40, operative part)
When the Commission, on conclusion of its investigation pursuant to Article 108(1) and (3) TFEU of a State aid scheme, adopts a positive decision as referred to in Article 7(3) of Regulation No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU], it is then apparent that the objective of putting into effect only plans to grant aid which are compatible with the internal market has been safeguarded and that the aid concerned may be put into effect.

However, that authorisation to put the aid into effect is valid only to the extent that proper regard is had to all the matters which the Commission has taken into consideration in its assessment of the compatibility of the measure concerned. In particular, where the notified measure incorporates, upon a proposal from the Member State concerned, commitments to which that State has agreed, those commitments must be held also to form an integral part of the measure that has been authorised. The Member State which is the addressee of the decision must make sure that it will be able to fulfil the commitments included in the authorisation. In that respect, it is responsible, inter alia, for satisfying itself that those commitments are consistent with its national law and for determining, if need be, whether it is appropriate to initiate, in accordance with its constitutional procedures, a process for amending that law.

(see paras 25, 27-29)