ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
57.

According to the Applicants, poultry slaughterhouses are subject to an ‘obligation of means’ (best endeavours) all along the slaughter process. Since complete prevention of spillage of digestive tract contents during evisceration is impossible, slaughterhouses have an obligation to make the utmost effort to avoid contamination of the meat. Such an obligation applies at the stage of evisceration too, or at that of cleaning. It cannot thus be expected, on the basis of point 5 or point 8, that spillage will not occur and that carcases will be thoroughly clean at the end of the ‘ready-to-cook’ chain, before chilling, which is also the referring court’s point of view. Point 8 does not provide for any specific outcome (such as ‘no visible contamination’) after cleaning. The Applicants submit that visible traces of contamination can still be removed at a later stage, during cutting or packaging so that no strict obligation of result (‘zero-tolerance-norm’) can be imposed upon them in this respect, after evisceration and cleaning and before chilling. According to them, it would be unrealistic from a technical point of view to require such a high standard because of the speed of the slaughter line in a mechanical process. Besides, the requirement for visible contamination to be removed after evisceration and before chilling does not have any scientifically supported basis, because contamination can usually occur earlier, when the poultry is being plucked.
11.

Article 20 of that directive provides: ‘1. Where the Member State of refund considers that it does not have all the relevant information on which to make a decision in respect of the whole or part of the refund application, it may request, by electronic means, additional information, in particular from the applicant or from the competent authorities of the Member State of establishment, within the four-month period referred to in Article 19(2). Where the additional information is requested from someone other than the applicant or a competent authority of a Member State, the request shall be made by electronic means only if such means are available to the recipient of the request. If necessary, the Member State of refund may request further additional information. The information requested in accordance with this paragraph may include the submission of the original or a copy of the relevant invoice or import document where the Member State of refund has reasonable doubts regarding the validity or accuracy of a particular claim. In that case, the thresholds mentioned in Article 10 shall not apply. 2. The Member State of refund shall be provided with the information requested under paragraph 1 within one month of the date on which the request reaches the person to whom it is addressed.’
11.

Following the arrest of XD in the Netherlands on 28 May 2019, the EAW was forwarded to the rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands), which has decided to refer the following question for a preliminary ruling: ‘Can a Public Prosecutor who participates in the administration of justice in the issuing Member State, who acts independently in the execution of those of its responsibilities which are inherent in the issuing of a European arrest warrant, and who has issued an EAW, be regarded as an issuing judicial authority within the meaning of Article 6(1) of [the] Framework Decision … if a judge in the issuing Member State has assessed the conditions for issuing an EAW and, in particular, its proportionality prior to the actual decision of that Public Prosecutor to issue the EAW?’
11.

Article 37 of Directive 2009/72, entitled ‘Duties and powers of the regulatory authority’, provides: ‘1. The regulatory authority shall have the following duties: … (b) ensuring compliance of transmission and distribution system operators and, where relevant, system owners, as well as of any electricity undertakings, with their obligations under this Directive and other relevant Community legislation, including as regards cross-border issues; … (h) monitoring compliance with and reviewing the past performance of network security and reliability rules …; … (m) monitoring the time taken by transmission and distribution system operators to make connections and repairs; (n) helping to ensure, together with other relevant authorities, that the consumer protection measures, including those set out in Annex I, are effective and enforced; … 4. Member States shall ensure that regulatory authorities are granted the powers enabling them to carry out the duties referred to in paragraphs 1, 3 and 6 in an efficient and expeditious manner. For this purpose, the regulatory authority shall have at least the following powers: (a) to issue binding decisions on electricity undertakings; … (d) to impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties on electricity undertakings not complying with their obligations under this Directive or any relevant legally binding decisions of the regulatory authority or of the Agency, or to propose that a competent court impose such penalties. This shall include the power to impose or propose the imposition of penalties … for non-compliance with their respective obligations pursuant to this Directive; and … 11. Any party having a complaint against a transmission or distribution system operator in relation to that operator’s obligations under this Directive may refer the complaint to the regulatory authority which, acting as dispute settlement authority, shall issue a decision within a period of two months after receipt of the complaint. That period may be extended by two months where additional information is sought by the regulatory authority. That extended period may be further extended with the agreement of the complainant. The regulatory authority’s decision shall have binding effect unless and until overruled on appeal. 12. Any party who is affected and who has a right to complain concerning a decision on methodologies taken pursuant to this Article or, where the regulatory authority has a duty to consult, concerning the proposed tariffs or methodologies, may, at the latest within two months, or a shorter time period as provided by Member States, following publication of the decision or proposal for a decision, submit a complaint for review. Such a complaint shall not have suspensive effect. … 17. Member States shall ensure that suitable mechanisms exist at national level under which a party affected by a decision of a regulatory authority has a right of appeal to a body independent of the parties involved and of any government.’
3.

Article 211 of the UCC, entitled ‘Authorisation’, provides as follows: ‘1. An authorisation from the customs authorities shall be required for the following: (a) … the end-use procedure; (b) … The conditions under which the use of one or more of the procedures referred to in the first subparagraph … is permitted shall be set out in the authorisation. 2. The customs authorities shall grant an authorisation with retroactive effect, where all of the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) there is a proven economic need; (b) the application is not related to attempted deception; (c) the applicant has proven on the basis of accounts or records that: (i) all the requirements of the procedure are met; (ii) where appropriate, the goods can be identified for the period involved; (iii) such accounts or records allow the procedure to be controlled; (d) all the formalities necessary to regularise the situation of the goods can be carried out, including, where necessary, the invalidation of the customs declarations concerned; (e) no authorisation with retroactive effect has been granted to the applicant within three years of the date on which the application was accepted; (f) an examination of the economic conditions is not required, except where an application concerns renewal of an authorisation for the same kind of operation and goods; (g) the application does not concern the operation of storage facilities for the customs warehousing of goods; (h) where an application concerns renewal of an authorisation for the same kind of operation and goods, the application is submitted within three years of expiry of the original authorisation. Customs authorities may grant an authorisation with retroactive effect also where the goods which were placed under a customs procedure are no longer available at the time when the application for such authorisation was accepted. …’
2.

The review shall concern the question whether, having regard, in particular, to the general principle of legal certainty, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2018, Simpson v Council (T‑646/16 P, not published, EU:T:2018:493), affects the unity or consistency of EU law in that the General Court, as the court hearing the appeal, held that the composition of the panel of judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal which had delivered the order of 24 June 2016, Simpson v Council (F‑142/11 RENV, EU:F:2016:136), had been irregular, on the basis of an irregularity affecting the procedure for the appointment of one of the members of that panel of judges, leading to infringement of the principle of the lawful judge, laid down in the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The review shall involve, in particular, the question whether, like the acts covered by Article 277 TFEU, the appointment of a judge may form the subject matter of a review of indirect legality or whether such a review of indirect legality is — by principle or after the passage of a certain period of time — excluded or limited to certain types of irregularity in order to ensure legal certainty and the force of res judicata.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/10

Action brought on 12 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-494/07)

(2008/C 8/17)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Recchia)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to

— declare, that, by failing to take the measures necessary to implement correctly its obligations under Articles 6(4), 12 and 13 (in conjunction with Annex IV) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main argument

The Commission has examined the compatibility of the measures taken by the Hellenic Republic to transpose Directive 92/43/EEC.

Its review showed that certain provisions of the directive have not been fully implemented and/or have not been transposed correctly.

In particular, the Commission considers that the use of the phrase ‘reasons of essential public interest’ in the Greek legislation instead of the phrase ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest’ referred to in Article 6(4) of the directive, is an incorrect transposition of the provision in question, because it widens the possibility of use of the derogation provided for and is not compatible with the need to interpret it narrowly.

The Commission also considers that the addition, in the Greek legislation, of the words ‘of particular economic significance’ to the phrase ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest’ contained in Article 6(4) of the directive, bringing into operation the exception provided for in that provision, constitutes an incorrect transposition of Article 6(4) of the directive, because it adds further possibilities of derogation.

Lastly, the Commission ascertained that, as the Greek authorities acknowledge, the provisions of the Greek legislation transposing Articles 12 and 13 do not refer to the Annex which specifies their scope of application, so that the above articles of the directive have not been correctly transposed.

The Commission therefore considers that the Hellenic Republic has not correctly implemented Articles 6(4), 12 and 13 of the Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

(1) OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/25

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 5 November 2007 — Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) v Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna Soc. Coop. Arl

(Case C-486/07)

(2008/C 22/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

Defendant: Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna Soc. Coop. Arl

Question referred

‘On the basis of the EEC regulations in force at the time of the facts of the case (1994 to 1995) on the sale of cereals held by intervention agencies, do the price reductions laid down in respect of the presence of a higher moisture content than that of the standard quality apply also to the sale of maize?’
1.

Does the second paragraph of Article 19(1) of the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC (1) require the proportion deductible by a taxable person under Article 17(5) to be determined on an annual basis, fixed as a percentage and rounded up to a figure not exceeding the next unit where: a. that proportion is a proportion which has been determined for a sector of the business of the taxable person in accordance with either item (a) or (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 17(5); and/or b. that proportion is a proportion which has been determined on the basis of the use of all or part of goods and services by the taxable person in accordance with item (c) of the third subparagraph of Article 17(5); and/or c. that proportion is a proportion which has been determined in respect of all goods and services used by the taxable person for all transactions referred to in the first paragraph of Article 17(5), in accordance with item (d) of the third subparagraph thereof?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/37

Appeal brought on 29 November 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-36/04: Association de la presse internationale ASBL v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-532/07 P)

(2008/C 22/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Docksey and P. Aalto, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— quash the contested judgment in part insofar as it annulled the decision of the Commission refusing access to documents requested by API as from the date of the hearing concerning all actions save infringement proceedings;

— give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal;

— order the Applicant in Case T-36/04 to pay the costs of the Commission arising from that case and from the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission respectfully submits that, first, the Court of First Instance has erred in law by interpreting court proceedings exception to the effect that the institutions must consider requests for access to written pleadings in non-infringement actions on a case by case basis as from the date of the hearing. In this respect the Commission respectfully submits that the conclusions of the Court of First Instance are inconsistent with its reasoning, that the CFI did not take into account the interest in the proper administration of justice or the interest of other persons mentioned in the procedure, and that the CFI only considered the rights and obligations of one of the parties. Whilst court documents submitted by the institutions are not excluded from the scope of Regulation 1049/2001 (1), the conclusion reached by the CFI has no basis in Community legislation or in the case law of the Court of Justice.

Second, the CFI has erred in law by interpreting the investigations exception to the effect that the Commission must consider requests for access to written pleadings in infringement proceedings under Article 226 EC on a case by case basis as from the date of the judgement, including actions which have been decided but not yet been resolved, thus weakening the ability of the Commission as guardian of the Treaties to ensure respect by Member States of their obligations under Community law.

Third, the CFI has erred in law by interpreting the court proceedings exception to the effect that the institutions must consider requests for access to their written pleadings on a case by case basis in actions which have been decided but which are related to pending actions, thus weakening their ability to defend their interests before the Community Courts and weakening the ability of the Commission as guardian of the Treaties to seek to enforce Community law.

(1) OJ L 145, p. 43.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/25

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Lahr (Germany) lodged on 6 November 2007 — Pia Messner v Firma Stefan Krüger

(Case C-489/07)

(2008/C 22/48)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Lahr

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pia Messner

Defendants: Stefan Krüger, SFK Laptophandel

Question referred

Is Article 6(2) in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 6(1) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which provides that, in the case of a revocation by a consumer within the revocation period, a seller may claim compensation for the value of the use of the consumer goods delivered?

(1) OJ 1977 L 144, p. 19.
Also, in the Commission's submission, the conditions for application of Article 141(4) EC, which concerns providing for specific advantages to make it easier for the underrepresented sex to pursue a vocational activity, are not met.

In this instance, the provisions in question do not help to correct the problems which women may face in their professional careers but, on the contrary, facilitate their withdrawal from the labour market.
—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/73/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/35

Action brought on 7 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-547/07)

(2008/C 51/58)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

— by failing to classify as special protection areas (SPAs) for birds all areas which, on the application of ornithological criteria, appear to be the most appropriate for the conservation of bird species, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds;

— order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The obligation to carry out the classification of special protection areas for birds (SPAs) was imposed on the Republic of Poland at the time of its accession to the European Union.

In December 2004 an ornithological inventory was published which detailed the situation of birds of European significance in Poland (IBA 2004) and designated, on the basis of ornithological criteria, 140 areas of crucial importance for the conservation of birds.

Of the areas included on the IBA 2004 list, 15 were not classified by the Republic of Poland as SPAs, notwithstanding the fact that the Polish authorities failed to produce any scientific evidence to justify that failure to designate them.

Furthermore, the areas of 8 SPAs are much smaller than their equivalents on the IBA 2004 inventory, with the result that outside their limits there are areas which, according to IBA 2004, would appear to be most suitable for the conservation of bird species.

In addition, in September 2007 the Polish authorities, without notifying the Commission, reduced the areas of 5 designated SPAs in a manner impacting significantly on bird conservation.

(1) OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/16

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 3 December 2007 — Assitur Srl v Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Milano

(Case C-538/07)

(2008/C 37/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Assitur Srl

Defendant: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Milano

Question referred

Does Article 29 of Directive 92/50/EEC (1), in laying down seven grounds for exclusion from participation in service contracts, give an exhaustive list of cases of exclusion and therefore preclude Article 10(1 bis) of Law No 109/94 (now replaced by Article 34, last paragraph, of Legislative Decree No 136/86) from imposing a prohibition on simultaneous participation in a tendering procedure of undertakings which are linked by a relationship of control?

(1) OJ L 1992 209, p. 1.
1.

(a) Must Articles 3(1), 6(2) and 7(1)(d) and (2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (1) — ‘the Directive’ — be interpreted as meaning that they also apply to family members within the meaning of Article 2(2) of the Directive who arrived in the host Member State (Article 2(3) of the Directive) independently of the citizen of the Union and only became a family member or took up family life with the citizen of the Union in that Member State? (b) If this is so, does it also depend on whether the family member was lawfully resident in the host Member State at the moment he became a family member or took up family life? If the answer is in the affirmative, can residence be considered lawful if the family member is entitled to stay solely on the basis of his status as an asylum seeker? (c) If the answer to Questions 1(a) and (b) is that a family member who arrived in the host Member State independently of the citizen of the Union and became a family member or took up family life with the citizen of the Union only in that Member State does not have a right of residence under the Directive if he is entitled to stay ‘merely’ on the basis of his status as an asylum seeker: irrespective of the above, do Articles 18 EC and 39 EC, respectively, read in the light of the fundamental right to respect for family life, give rise to a right to residence in circumstances in which the family member has been staying in the host Member State for nearly four years and has been married for a year to a citizen of the Union with whom he has been living for approximately three and a half years and with whom he has a 20-month-old child?